目的评估儿童序贯器官衰竭评分(pSOFA)预测儿童脓毒症严重程度和预后的临床价值。
方法回顾分析2014年2月至2015年1月收入上海交通大学医学院附属上海儿童医学中心重症医学科诊断为脓毒症和严重脓毒症的患儿资料,计算入科第1天pSOFA、小儿危重病例评分(PCIS)、第三代小儿死亡危险评分(PRISM Ⅲ)和儿童多器官功能障碍评分(P-MODS)。Spearman相关分析评估pSOFA与PCIS、PRISM Ⅲ和P-MODS评分的相关性以及与器官功能障碍、机械通气时间的相关性;受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUC)法比较pSOFA和PCIS、PRISM Ⅲ、P-MODS评分对儿童脓毒症严重程度和住院期间预后的预测价值。
结果共纳入患儿91例,其中住院期间存活58例,死亡33例。相关性分析显示pSOFA与P-MODS评分具有最好的相关性( R=0.709, P<0.001),其次是与PCIS( R=-0.511, P<0.001)及PRISM Ⅲ( R=0.500, P<0.001)相关。pSOFA和入PICU第1天发生器官功能障碍的数目具有相关性( R=0.641, P<0.001),与机械通气时间无相关性( R=0.124, P=0.240)。ROC曲线分析显示pSOFA预测严重脓毒症的AUC为0.843(95% CI 0.751-0.910, P<0.001),优于P-MODS( P=0.03),与PCIS( P=0.06)和PRISM Ⅲ( P=0.30)差异无统计学意义;pSOFA预测脓毒症住院期间死亡的AUC为0.929(95% CI 0.865-0.973, P<0.001),优于P-MODS( P<0.001)、PCIS( P<0.001)和PRISM Ⅲ( P=0.01)。pSOFA预测严重脓毒症的最佳预测值是>8分(敏感性62.8%,特异性91.7%);pSOFA预测脓毒症住院期间死亡的最佳预测值是>6分(敏感性93.9%,特异性77.6%)。
结论pSOFA较PCIS、PRISM Ⅲ和P-MODS评分可更好地预测儿童脓毒症严重程度和住院期间的预后。因此,纳入pSOFA评分有助于儿童脓毒症的诊断和治疗。
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical value of pediatrics sequential organ failure assessment(pSOFA)score in predicting the severity and outcome of sepsis in children.
MethodsData of children with sepsis and severe sepsis were collected from February 2014 to January 2015 in the pediatric intensive care unit, Shanghai Children′s Medical Center Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.Scores of pSOFA, pediatric critical illness score(PCIS), pediatric risk of mortality Ⅲ(PRISM Ⅲ), and pediatric multiple organ dysfunction score(P-MODS) were collected on the first day of admission.Spearman correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation among the pSOFA, PCIS, PRISM Ⅲ, P-MODS, meanwhile the correlation between the scores and the organ dysfunction as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation.In addition, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to compare the predictive value of pSOFA and PCIS, PRISM Ⅲ, P-MODS in predicting the severity and prognosis of sepsis in children.
ResultsNinty-one patients were collected in this study, including 58 survived cases and 33 died cases.There was the best correlation between pSOFA and P-MODS( R=0.709, P<0.001), following by PCIS( R=0.511, P<0.001)and PRISM Ⅲ( R=0.500, P<0.001). There was a correlation between pSOFA and organ dysfunction number on the first day( R=0.641, P<0.001). There was no correlation between pSOFA and mechanical ventilation time( R=0.124, P=0.240). The area under ROC of severe sepsis predicted by pSOFA was 0.843(95% CI 0.751-0.910, P<0.001), which was better than P-MODS( P=0.03). There was no significant difference between pSOFA and PCIS( P=0.06), as well as PRISM Ⅲ( P=0.30). The area under ROC of pSOFA in predicting the inhospital outcome of sepsis was 0.929(95% CI 0.865-0.973, P<0.001), which was better than P-MODS( P<0.001), PCIS( P<0.001), PRISM Ⅲ( P<0.001). The optimal cut-off value for pSOFA to predict severe sepsis was >8 points(sensitivity 62.8%, specificity 91.7%); the optimal cut-off value for pSOFA to predict inhospital outcome of sepsis was >6 points(sensitivity 93.9%, specificity 77.6%).
ConclusionpSOFA is better than PCIS, PRISM Ⅲ and P-MODS score in predicting the severity and outcome of sepsis in children.Therefore, pSOFA is useful to the diagnosis and treatment of children sepsis.
项龙,王莹,赵列宾,等. 儿童序贯器官衰竭评分预测儿童脓毒症严重程度和预后的临床研究[J]. 中国小儿急救医学,2020,27(12):887-892.
DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4912.2020.12.002版权归中华医学会所有。
未经授权,不得转载、摘编本刊文章,不得使用本刊的版式设计。
除非特别声明,本刊刊出的所有文章不代表中华医学会和本刊编委会的观点。
指标 | 存活( n=58) | 死亡( n=33) | Z/ χ 2值 | P值 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
年龄[M( P 25, P 75),月] | 11.5(3.0,69.0) | 13(5.0,31.5) | -0.10 | 0.98 | |
性别(男/女,例) | 27/31 | 27/6 | 10.8 | <0.01 | |
严重脓毒症(例) | 17 | 26 | 20.7 | <0.01 | |
感染部位[例(%)] | |||||
呼吸 | 24(41.4) | 10(30.3) | 1.1 | 0.30 | |
血液 | 20(34.5) | 16(48.5) | 1.7 | 0.19 | |
消化 | 3(5.2) | 3(9.1) | 0.1 | 0.78 | |
神经 | 5(8.6) | 2(6.1) | 0.1 | 0.96 | |
泌尿 | 6(10.3) | 0(0) | 2.2 | 0.14 | |
其他 | 0(0) | 2(6.1) | 1.3 | 0.25 | |
生命体征 | |||||
体温[M( P 25, P 75),℃] | 37.6(37.0,38.3) | 37.5(36.7,38.1) | -1.5 | 0.15 | |
呼吸[M( P 25, P 75),次/min] | 32.5(28.3,45.0) | 40(30,50) | -1.5 | 0.12 | |
心率[M( P 25, P 75),次/min] | 149(129,170) | 157(130,167) | -0.3 | 0.74 | |
PaO 2/FiO 2[M( P 25, P 75),mmHg] | 178.3(102.8,264.8) | 131.8(77.4,217.5) | -1.9 | 0.05 | |
收缩压[M( P 25, P 75),mmHg] | 94.5(83.0,108.0) | 94.0(78.4,110.0) | -0.2 | 0.82 | |
肌酐[M( P 25, P 75),μmol/L] | 25.0(10.0,36.5) | 25.0(10.5,68.5) | -0.3 | 0.76 | |
胆红素[M( P 25, P 75),μmol/L)] | 210.3(153.9,374.5) | 542.1(150.4,1 007.2) | -1.6 | 0.11 | |
血小板[M( P 25, P 75),×10 9/L] | 194.5(52.0,359.5) | 105.0(37.5,250.0) | -1.8 | 0.08 | |
评分[M( P 25, P 75),分] | |||||
pSOFA | 4(3,6) | 11(8.5,13) | -6.8 | <0.01 | |
PCIS | 84(78,88) | 78(65.0,82) | -3.8 | <0.01 | |
PRISM Ⅲ | 6(4,9) | 13(9,19) | -4.6 | <0.01 | |
P-MODS | 2.5(1,5) | 6(4,8) | -4.1 | <0.01 | |
入PICU第1天器官功能障碍数目[M( P 25, P 75),个] | 1(1,3) | 2(2,2) | -5.7 | <0.01 | |
机械通气比例[例(%)] | 13(22.4) | 26(78.8) | 27.3 | <0.01 | |
机械通气时间[M( P 25, P 75),d] | 0(0,0) | 2(1,7) | -4.5 | <0.01 | |
总住院时间[M( P 25, P 75),d] | 16(9,25) | 5(2,15) | -3.8 | <0.01 | |
总住院费用[M( P 25, P 75),万元] | 3.6(1.9,5.8) | 2.6(1.7,4.0) | -1.0 | <0.01 |

你好,我可以帮助您更好的了解本文,请向我提问您关注的问题。