Cargando…

Comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: A STROBE report

Various disease severity scoring systems were currently used in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure, while their performances were not well investigated. The study aimed to investigate the difference in prognosis predictive value of 4 different disease severity scoring systems in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Wen-Cheng, Xie, Hong-Jian, Fan, Hong-Tao, Yan, Mei-Hao, Hong, Yuan-Cheng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34596157
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027380
_version_ 1784577204569505792
author Huang, Wen-Cheng
Xie, Hong-Jian
Fan, Hong-Tao
Yan, Mei-Hao
Hong, Yuan-Cheng
author_facet Huang, Wen-Cheng
Xie, Hong-Jian
Fan, Hong-Tao
Yan, Mei-Hao
Hong, Yuan-Cheng
author_sort Huang, Wen-Cheng
collection PubMed
description Various disease severity scoring systems were currently used in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure, while their performances were not well investigated. The study aimed to investigate the difference in prognosis predictive value of 4 different disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure. With a retrospective cohort study design, adult patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure were screened and relevant data were extracted from an open-access American intensive care database to calculate the following disease severity scores on ICU admission: acute physiology score (APS) III, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), and Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS). Hospital mortality was chosen as the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze the association of each scoring system with the outcome. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were conducted to evaluate the prognosis predictive performance of each scoring system. A total of 4828 patients with acute respiratory failure were enrolled with a hospital mortality rate of 16.78%. APS III (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.03), SOFA (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12–1.18), qSOFA (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11–1.42), and OASIS (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05–1.08) were all significantly associated with hospital mortality after adjustment for age and comorbidities. Receiver operating characteristic analyses showed that APS III had the highest area under the curve (AUC) (0.703, 95% CI 0.683–0.722), and SOFA and OASIS shared similar predictive performance (area under the curve 0.653 [95% CI 0.631–0.675] and 0.664 [95% CI 0.644–0.685], respectively), while qSOFA had the worst predictive performance for predicting hospital mortality (0.553, 95% CI 0.535–0.572). These results suggested the prognosis predictive value varied among the 4 different disease severity scores for patients admitted to ICU with acute respiratory failure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8483864
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84838642021-10-04 Comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: A STROBE report Huang, Wen-Cheng Xie, Hong-Jian Fan, Hong-Tao Yan, Mei-Hao Hong, Yuan-Cheng Medicine (Baltimore) 3900 Various disease severity scoring systems were currently used in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure, while their performances were not well investigated. The study aimed to investigate the difference in prognosis predictive value of 4 different disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure. With a retrospective cohort study design, adult patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure were screened and relevant data were extracted from an open-access American intensive care database to calculate the following disease severity scores on ICU admission: acute physiology score (APS) III, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA), quick SOFA (qSOFA), and Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS). Hospital mortality was chosen as the primary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze the association of each scoring system with the outcome. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were conducted to evaluate the prognosis predictive performance of each scoring system. A total of 4828 patients with acute respiratory failure were enrolled with a hospital mortality rate of 16.78%. APS III (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.03), SOFA (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12–1.18), qSOFA (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11–1.42), and OASIS (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05–1.08) were all significantly associated with hospital mortality after adjustment for age and comorbidities. Receiver operating characteristic analyses showed that APS III had the highest area under the curve (AUC) (0.703, 95% CI 0.683–0.722), and SOFA and OASIS shared similar predictive performance (area under the curve 0.653 [95% CI 0.631–0.675] and 0.664 [95% CI 0.644–0.685], respectively), while qSOFA had the worst predictive performance for predicting hospital mortality (0.553, 95% CI 0.535–0.572). These results suggested the prognosis predictive value varied among the 4 different disease severity scores for patients admitted to ICU with acute respiratory failure. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8483864/ /pubmed/34596157 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027380 Text en Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
spellingShingle 3900
Huang, Wen-Cheng
Xie, Hong-Jian
Fan, Hong-Tao
Yan, Mei-Hao
Hong, Yuan-Cheng
Comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: A STROBE report
title Comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: A STROBE report
title_full Comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: A STROBE report
title_fullStr Comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: A STROBE report
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: A STROBE report
title_short Comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: A STROBE report
title_sort comparison of prognosis predictive value of 4 disease severity scoring systems in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit: a strobe report
topic 3900
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34596157
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000027380
work_keys_str_mv AT huangwencheng comparisonofprognosispredictivevalueof4diseaseseverityscoringsystemsinpatientswithacuterespiratoryfailureinintensivecareunitastrobereport
AT xiehongjian comparisonofprognosispredictivevalueof4diseaseseverityscoringsystemsinpatientswithacuterespiratoryfailureinintensivecareunitastrobereport
AT fanhongtao comparisonofprognosispredictivevalueof4diseaseseverityscoringsystemsinpatientswithacuterespiratoryfailureinintensivecareunitastrobereport
AT yanmeihao comparisonofprognosispredictivevalueof4diseaseseverityscoringsystemsinpatientswithacuterespiratoryfailureinintensivecareunitastrobereport
AT hongyuancheng comparisonofprognosispredictivevalueof4diseaseseverityscoringsystemsinpatientswithacuterespiratoryfailureinintensivecareunitastrobereport