3.8 Article

Application of Sepsis-3 Criteria to Korean Patients with Critical Illnesses

期刊

ACUTE AND CRITICAL CARE
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 30-37

出版社

KOREAN SOC CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
DOI: 10.4266/acc.2018.00318

关键词

intensive care units; organ dysfunction; Sepsis; Sepsis-3; septic shock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The 2016 Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM)/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) task force for Sepsis-3 devised new definitions for sepsis, sepsis with organ dysfunction and septic shock. Although Sepsis-3 was data-driven, evidence-based approach, East Asian descents comprised minor portions of the project population. Methods: We selected Korean participants from the fever and antipyretics in critically ill patients evaluation (FACE) study, a joint study between Korea and Japan. We calculated the concordance rates for sepsis diagnosis between Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 criteria and evaluated mortality rates of sepsis, sepsis with organ dysfunction, and septic shock by Sepsis-3 criteria using the selected data. Results: Korean participants of the FACE study were 913 (383 with sepsis and 530 without sepsis by Sepsis-2 criteria). The concordance rate for sepsis diagnosis between Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 criteria was 55.4%. The intensive care unit (ICU) and 28-day mortality rates of sepsis, sepsis with organ dysfunction, and septic shock patients according to Sepsis-3 criteria were 26.2% and 31.0%, 27.5% and 32.5%, and 40.8% and 43.4%, respectively. The quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) was inferior not only to SOFA but also to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) for predicting ICU and 28-day mortality. Conclusions: The concordance rates for sepsis diagnosis between Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 criteria were low. Mortality rate for septic shock in Koreans was consistent with estimates made by the 2016 SCCM/ESICM task force. SOFA and SIRS were better than qSOFA for predicting ICU and 28-day mortality in Korean ICU patients.

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

3.8
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