4.3 Article

DERIVATION OF A PIRO SCORE FOR PREDICTION OF MORTALITY SURGICAL PATIENTS WITH INTRA-ABDOMINAL SEPSIS

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 287-294

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CRITICAL CARE NURSES
DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2018576

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Mortality in patients with intra-abdominal sepsis remains high. Recognition and classification of patients with sepsis are challenging; about 70% of critical care specialists find the existing definitions confusing and not clinically useful. Objective To assess the usefulness of the predisposition, infection/injury, response, organ dysfunction (PIRO) concept in surgical intensive care patients with severe sepsis or septic shock due to an intra-abdominal source. Methods Data from 2005 through 2010 of a prospective observational cohort were reviewed retrospectively. Results Among 905 patients, overall mortality was 21.3%, but patients with septic shock had a mortality of 40.6%. The variables in each PIRO subset with P <=.10 were entered into a stepwise backward elimination logistic regression. A PIRO score was developed that included the following variables: age greater than 65 years; comorbid conditions; leukopenia; hypothermia; and cardiovascular, renal, respiratory, and central nervous system failure. One point was given for each feature detected. The mean score was significantly higher (P<.001) in non-survivors (3.9) than in survivors (2.3). When the data were distributed according to PIRO scores, mortality rate increased (p<.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve indicated consistent mortality discrimination by PIRO scores (0.80; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83), outperforming the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (0.72; 95% CI, 0.68-0.75) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (0.72; 95% CI, 0.68-0.76) (P<.001). Conclusion The PIRO score is useful for predicting mortality in patients with surgically related intra-abdominal sepsis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available