SOFA评分在评估重症监护室多器官功能衰竭发生率中的应用

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨序贯器官衰竭（SOFA）评分在评估重症监护室多器官功能衰竭发生率中的应用效果。方法选取2021年1月—2023年1月新疆维吾尔自治区中医医院收治的发生多器官功能衰竭的50例患者作为研究对象,将其设为观察组,另选取同期在新疆维吾尔自治区中医医院治疗的50例患者设为对照组,对比两组患者SOFA评分,并分析SOFA评分对多器官功能衰竭的诊断效能。对观察组患者进行院内随访,将院内28 d死亡的21例患者设为死亡组,将其余29例存活的患者设为存活组,对比两组患者临床一般情况,并分析SOFA评分对于多器官功能衰竭的预后预测价值。结果对照组患者SOFA评分低于观察组（P<0.05）。通过绘制ROC曲线,结果显示,SOFA评分诊断多器官功能衰竭曲线下面积为0.832,特异度为91.47%,敏感度为73.59%,临床综合诊断的曲线下面积为0.891,特异度为98.52%,敏感度为90.26%;存活组与死亡组患者性别、身体质量指数（BMI）、合并基础疾病、入住ICU时间比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,存活组与死亡组患者年龄、APACHEⅡ评分、SOFA评分比较,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;通过Logistic回归分析,SOFA评分为多器官功能衰竭患者预后情况的独立预测指标（P<0.05）。结论 SOFA评分能够有效评估多器官功能衰竭的发生情况,且敏感度和特异度均比较高,同时SOFA评分也能够辅助预测多器官功能衰竭的预后情况。临床上针对SOFA评分较高的患者需及时改良治疗方案,预防患者预后不良情况发生。

关键词: 序贯器官衰竭评分, 重症监护室, 多器官功能衰竭, 预后预测, 诊断价值

Abstract: Objective To explore the application effect of sequential organ failure (SOFA) score in assessing the incidence of multiple organ failure in intensive care unit. Methods A total of 50 patients with multiple organ failure admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital from January 2021 to January 2023 were selected as the study subjects, and divided into the observation group, and 50 patients who were treated in the intensive care unit at the same time were selected as the control group. The SOFA scores of the two groups were compared, and the diagnostic efficacy of SOFA scores on multiple organ failure was analyzed. All patients were followed up in the hospital, 21 patients who died 28 days in the hospital were divided into death group, and the remaining 29 patients were divided into survival group. The general clinical conditions of the two groups were compared, and the prognostic value of SOFA score for multiple organ failure in intensive care unit was analyzed. Results The SOFA score of patients in the control group was lower than that in the observation group (P<0.05). By drawing the ROC curve, the results showed that the area under the curve of SOFA score diagnosis of multiple organ failure was 0.832, the specificity was 91.47%, the sensitivity was 73.59%, and the area under the curve of clinical comprehensive diagnosis was 0.891, the specificity was 98.52%, the sensitivity was 90.26%. There was no significant difference between the survival group and the death group in terms of sex, BMI, basic disease, and time of admission to ICU (P>0.05), but there was significant difference between the survival group and the death group in terms of age, APACHE II score, and SOFA score (P<0.05). The results of logistic regression analysis showed that SOFA score was an independent predictor of multiple organ failure (P<0.05). Conclusion SOFA score can effectively evaluate the occurrence of multiple organ failure in intensive care unit with high sensitivity and specificity. Meanwhile, SOFA score can also help predict the prognosis of multiple organ failure in intensive care unit. Clinically, patients with high SOFA scores need to improve the treatment plan in time to prevent the occurrence of poor prognosis.

Key words: sequential organ failure score, ICU, multiple organ failure, prognosis prediction, diagnostic value

中图分类号:

R495.5

龙训辉. SOFA评分在评估重症监护室多器官功能衰竭发生率中的应用[J]. 中华养生保健, 2023, 41(17): 8-11.

LONG Xun-hui. Application of SOFA Score in Assessing the Incidence of Multiple Organ Failure in Intensive Care Unit[J]. ZHONGHUA YANGSHENG BAOJIAN, 2023, 41(17): 8-11.

参考文献

[1] 刘冰,王鹏,杨德湘,等.新型冠状病毒感染并发多器官功能障碍综合征的临床特点和危险因素[J].中华结核和呼吸杂志,2021,44(5):435-442.
[2] 申丁丁,杜美群.多器官功能障碍综合征患者血清中性粒细胞肌红蛋白NT-末端脑钠尿肽和核因子-κB表达水平及其临床意义[J].山西医药杂志,2021,50(9):1451-1453.
[3] 李雪艳,范芬芬.早发型重度子痫前期合并多器官功能障碍综合征患者临床治疗情况分析[J].检验医学与临床,2022,19(10):1420-1422.
[4] 李艳华,陈颖,张兴达,等.后循环脑梗死合并中枢性高热致多器官功能障碍综合征1例并文献综述[J].中华急诊医学杂志,2022,31(7):978-980.
[5] 龙启成,温汉春,叶永康,等.系统免疫炎症指数及凝血指标联合SOFA评分在尿源性脓毒症早期病情评估中的意义[J].广西医科大学学报,2022,39(8):1244-1249.
[6] 李政军,邢向娈,杨丽婷,等.左室收缩功能、NTproBNP联合SOFA评分对脓毒症患者死亡风险的预测价值[J].宁夏医学杂志,2022,44(9):814-816.
[7] 袁法伟,冯辉斌,尹欢,等.呼吸衰竭患者体外膜肺氧合治疗后心率、氧合指数改变及APACHEⅡ与SOFA评分对预后的预测价值[J].国际医药卫生导报,2022,28(10):1338-1342.
[8] 彭杰,罗浩强,刘金洪,等.血清PCT及SOFA评分对脓毒症连续性肾脏替代治疗时机的指导价值研究[J].中国医药科学,2022,12(12):143-146.
[9] 范利,刘宏斌,白永怿,等.感染诱发的老年多器官功能障碍综合征诊断与治疗中国指南2019[J].中华老年多器官疾病杂志,2019,18(11):801-838.
[10] 冯长福,周森,邢柏.可溶性CD73联合SOFA评分对脓毒症相关急性肾损伤患者28d死亡风险的预测价值[J].中国急救医学,2022,42(1):13-18.
[11] 陈启龙,刘正东,周树生.PCT联合eSOFA评分对脓毒症患者预后的预测价值[J].临床误诊误治,2022,35(1):57-61,66.
[12] 俞凤,赵良,管军,等.SOFA评分对多器官功能障碍综合征患者的预后评价作用[J].中国危重病急救医学,2002,14(8):481-484.
[13] 陈海霞,吴婷.肺移植术后患者应用SOFA评分指导分级护理模式对其康复效果及出院准备度的影响[J].中国医药导报,2022,19(21):157-160.
[14] 严姝瑛,陈远卓,陈慧琳,等.血清降钙素原及乳酸清除率联合ΔSOFA评分评估脓毒症预后的价值[J].贵州医科大学学报,2018,43(11):1306-1310.
[15] 郭峻氚,木塔里甫·买合木提,肖东,等.未成熟粒细胞结合SOFA评分对脓毒症患者预后的评估价值[J].中国医药导报,2019,16(2):123-126.
[16] 胡述立,汤浩,范学朋,等.中心静脉动脉CO₂分压差联合SOFA评分对开腹结肠癌术后液体复苏的指导作用[J].内科急危重症杂志,2019,25(1):21-23.
[17] DE GROOTH H J, GEENEN I L, GIRBES A R, et al. SOFA and mortality endpoints in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis[J]. Crit Care, 2017,21(1):38.
[18] 田飞,张蓉,郭庆,周法庭,等.APACHEⅡ和SOFA评分对百草枯中毒继发ARDS严重程度及预后预测的研究[J].巴楚医学,2019,2(2):33-38.
[19] 陈晓燕,李元海,汪正光,等.中文版的简化SOFA评分与qSOFA评分在脓毒症患者筛查中的价值比较研究[J].中国急救医学,2019,39(6):555-558.