4.5 Article

Skin mottling score and capillary refill time to assess mortality of septic shock since pre-hospital setting

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 664-671

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.07.010

关键词

Septic shock; Skin mottling score; Capillary refill time; Mortality; Pre-hospital setting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The early identification of septic shock patients at high risk of poor outcome is essential to early initiate optimal treatments and to decide on hospital admission. Biomarkers are often used to evaluate the severity. In prehospital settings, the availability of biomarkers, such as lactate, is restricted. In this context, clinical tools such as skin mottling score (SMS) and capillary refill time (CRT) are more suitable. In this study, we describe prehospital SMS and CRT's ability to predict mortality of patients with septic shock initially cared in the prehospital setting by a mobile intensive care unit. Methods: Patients with septic shock who received prehospital medical care admitted to the intensive care unit were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Sixty-three patients were included. The origin of sepsis was mainly pulmonary (67%). Overall mortality reached 36%. No significant difference was observed in the duration of prehospital medical care between alive and deceased patients. Mean prehospital value of SMS was 3 +/- 2 and mean prehospital value of CRT was 5 +/- 1 s. A significant association was found between mortality and prehospital SMS (p = 0.02, OR[CI95] = 1.50 [1.08-2.15]) and prehospital CRT (p = 0.04, OR[CI95] = 1.53 [1.04-2.37]). After adjusting for confounding factors using propensity score, the relative risk of death was 6.58 for SMS > 2 and 2.03 for CRT > 4 s. Conclusion: In this study, we report an association between prehospital SMS and CRT, and mortality of patients with septic shock. SMS and CRT are simple tools that could be used to optimize the triage and to decide early intensive care admission. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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