4.7 Article

Risk assessment in sepsis: a new prognostication rule by APACHE II score and serum soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor

期刊

CRITICAL CARE
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/cc11463

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hellenic Institute for the Study of Sepsis
  2. ViroGates SA (Copenhagen, Denmark) [70/3/10570]
  3. Stockholm Research County
  4. Karolinska Institutet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Early risk assessment is the mainstay of management of patients with sepsis. APACHE II is the gold standard prognostic stratification system. A prediction rule that aimed to improve prognostication by APACHE II with the application of serum suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor) is developed. Methods: A prospective study cohort enrolled 1914 patients with sepsis including 62.2% with sepsis and 37.8% with severe sepsis/septic shock. Serum suPAR was measured in samples drawn after diagnosis by an enzyme-immunoabsorbent assay; in 367 patients sequential measurements were performed. After ROC analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis a prediction rule for risk was developed. The rule was validated in a double-blind fashion by an independent confirmation cohort of 196 sepsis patients, predominantly severe sepsis/septic shock patients, from Sweden. Results: Serum suPAR remained stable within survivors and non-survivors for 10 days. Regression analysis showed that APACHE II >= 17 and suPAR >= 12 ng/ml were independently associated with unfavorable outcome. Four strata of risk were identified: i) APACHE II <17 and suPAR <12 ng/ml with mortality 5.5%; ii) APACHE II <17 and suPAR >= 12 ng/ml with mortality 17.4%; iii) APACHE II >= 17 and suPAR <12 ng/ml with mortality 37.4%; and iv) APACHE II >= 17 and suPAR >= 12 ng/ml with mortality 51.7%. This prediction rule was confirmed by the Swedish cohort. Conclusions: A novel prediction rule with four levels of risk in sepsis based on APACHE II score and serum suPAR is proposed. Prognostication by this rule is confirmed by an independent cohort.

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