4.7 Article

A New Surgical Site Infection Risk Score: Infection Risk Index in Cardiac Surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8040480

关键词

surgical site infection; patient outcome; cardiac surgical procedures; scoring systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various scoring systems attempt to predict the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) after cardiac surgery, but their discrimination is limited. Our aim was to analyze all SSI risk factors in both coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and valve replacement patients in order to create a new SSI risk score for such individuals. A priori prospective collected data on patients that underwent cardiac surgery (n = 2020) were analyzed following recommendations from the Reporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) group. Study participants were divided into two periods: the training sample for defining the new tool (2010-2014, n = 1298), and the test sample for its validation (2015-2017, n = 722). In logistic regression, two preoperative variables were significantly associated with SSI (odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI)): diabetes, 3.3/2-5.7; and obesity, 4.5/2.2-9.3. The new score was constructed using a summation system for punctuation using integer numbers, that is, by assigning one point to the presence of either diabetes or obesity. The tool performed better in terms of assessing SSI risk in the test sample (area under the Receiver-Operating Characteristic curve (aROC) and 95% CI, 0.67/055-0.76) compared to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) risk index (0.61/0.50-0.71) and the Australian Clinical Risk Index (ACRI) (0.61/0.50-0.72). A new two-variable score to preoperative SSI risk stratification of cardiac surgery patients, named Infection Risk Index in Cardiac surgery (IRIC), which outperforms other classical scores, is now available to surgeons. Personalization of treatment for cardiac surgery patients is needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据