3.8 Article

Quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment score as a possible predictor for in-hospital adverse events in infective endocarditis

期刊

ACUTE MEDICINE & SURGERY
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 138-144

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ams2.393

关键词

Infective endocarditis; in-hospital; quick SOFA score; risk factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Infective endocarditis (IE) can be life-threatening because of various associated adverse events. The quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is a straightforward useful method for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with suspected infections. However, few data exist regarding the clinical impact of the qSOFA score on predicting adverse events in IE during hospitalization. We studied the usefulness of qSOFA score for predicting in-hospital adverse events in patients with IE. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 104 consecutive patients diagnosed with IE on the basis of modified Duke criteria. We defined in-hospital adverse events as occurrence of any of the following events during hospitalization: death, embolism, hemorrhage, or abscess formation. The high qSOFA group was defined as those with a qSOFA score >= 2. We used Cox regression analysis to estimate the hazard ratio for high qSOFA score on in-hospital adverse events adjusted for age, sex, and Staphylococcus aureus infection. Results We analyzed 83 patients (57 men, mean age 61 +/- 18 years) from the total cohort of 104 patients enrolled. Among these, 12 (14.5%) had high qSOFA scores. The high qSOFA group had higher in-hospital mortality compared to the low qSOFA group (50.0% vs. 4.2%, P < 0.01). In the Cox proportional hazards model, high qSOFA was significantly associated with in-hospital adverse events (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.29; confidence interval, 1.02-5.12; P = 0.044). Conclusion These results showed that high qSOFA score was significantly associated with in-hospital adverse events in IE patients, although further prospective study is necessary to confirm our results.

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