4.6 Article

ICU-Admission Hyperphosphataemia Is Related to Shock and Tissue Damage, Indicating Injury Severity and Mortality in Polytrauma Patients

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11091548

关键词

hyperphosphatemia; phosphate; ICU; polytrauma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyperphosphataemia in polytrauma patients at ICU admission is associated with injury severity, tissue damage, and mortality. Admission phosphate levels are a strong predictor for in-hospital mortality in polytrauma patients and perform as well as injury severity scores in predicting outcomes.
Hyperphosphataemia can originate from tissue ischaemia and damage and may be associated with injury severity in polytrauma patients. In this retrospective, single-centre study, 166 polytrauma patients (injury severity score (ISS) >= 16) primarily requiring intensive care unit (ICU) treatment were analysed within a five-year timeframe. ICU-admission phosphate levels defined a hyperphosphataemic (>1.45 mmol/L; n = 56) opposed to a non-hyperphosphataemic group (n = 110). In the hyperphosphataemic group, injury severity was increased (ISS median and IQR: 38 (30-44) vs. 26 (22-34); p < 0.001), as were signs of shock (lactate, resuscitation requirements), tissue damage (ASAT, ALAT, creatinine) and lastly in-hospital mortality (35.7% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.001). Hyperphosphataemia at ICU admission was shown to be a risk factor for mortality (1.46-2.10 mmol/L: odds ratio (OR) 3.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-15.16); p = 0.045; >2.10 mmol/L: OR 12.81 (CI 3.45-47.48); p < 0.001) and admission phosphate levels alone performed as good as injury severity score (ISS) in predicting in-hospital mortality (area under the ROC curve: 0.811 vs. 0.770; p = 0.389). Hyperphosphataemia at ICU admission is related to tissue damage and shock and indicates injury severity and subsequent mortality in polytrauma patients. Admission phosphate levels represent an easily feasible yet strong predictor for in-hospital mortality.

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

4.6
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