COMPARISON OF PEDIATRIC INDEX OF MORTALITY (PIM)-3 AND PEDIATRIC SEQUENTIAL ORGAN FAILURE ASSESSMENT (pSOFA) SCORES TO PREDICT MORTALITY IN PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

Ankit Kumar Pawar, Gaurav Kumar Prajapati, Kanchan Choubey, Rashmi Randa
{"title":"COMPARISON OF PEDIATRIC INDEX OF MORTALITY (PIM)-3 AND PEDIATRIC SEQUENTIAL ORGAN FAILURE ASSESSMENT (pSOFA) SCORES TO PREDICT MORTALITY IN PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE UNIT","authors":"Ankit Kumar Pawar, Gaurav Kumar Prajapati, Kanchan Choubey, Rashmi Randa","doi":"10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i6.51384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of the study is to evaluate and compare the pediatric index of mortality (PIM)-3 and pediatric sequential organ failure assessment (pSOFA) scores to predict mortality in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).\nMethods: This cross-sectional study was conducted prospectively in PICU over 1 year. All consecutive patients admitted to the PICU aged 1 month to 12 years on designated study days were enrolled in the study (n=400). Mortality scores were calculated on the same day of admission using an Android calculator application.\nResults: The mean PIM-3 score in the non-survivor group (n=48) was higher, i.e., −0.81 (−2.05 to −0.44) than in the survivor group (n=352), i.e., −4.67 (−5.83 to −4.05) with p<0.001. The pSOFA score was also found higher in the non-survivor group, i.e., 11 interquartile range (IQR) (8–11) as compared to the survivor group, i.e., 3 IQR (2–5) with statistically significant difference (p<0.001). The median value of sensitivity and specificity for PIM-3 was reported to be 97.46% and 86.67%, respectively. The median value of sensitivity and specificity for pSOFA was 97.72% and 85.11%, respectively. The area under-receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC) 0.9145 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8595–0.9695) for the PIM-3 was almost equal to the AU-ROC of pSOFA score, i.e., 0.9554 (95% CI: 0.918–0.992). Both scores were positively associated with each other (r=0.807, <0.0001)\nConclusion: Both PIM-3 and pSOFA scores were effective in predicting mortality in critically ill children.","PeriodicalId":8528,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2024.v17i6.51384","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study is to evaluate and compare the pediatric index of mortality (PIM)-3 and pediatric sequential organ failure assessment (pSOFA) scores to predict mortality in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted prospectively in PICU over 1 year. All consecutive patients admitted to the PICU aged 1 month to 12 years on designated study days were enrolled in the study (n=400). Mortality scores were calculated on the same day of admission using an Android calculator application. Results: The mean PIM-3 score in the non-survivor group (n=48) was higher, i.e., −0.81 (−2.05 to −0.44) than in the survivor group (n=352), i.e., −4.67 (−5.83 to −4.05) with p<0.001. The pSOFA score was also found higher in the non-survivor group, i.e., 11 interquartile range (IQR) (8–11) as compared to the survivor group, i.e., 3 IQR (2–5) with statistically significant difference (p<0.001). The median value of sensitivity and specificity for PIM-3 was reported to be 97.46% and 86.67%, respectively. The median value of sensitivity and specificity for pSOFA was 97.72% and 85.11%, respectively. The area under-receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC) 0.9145 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8595–0.9695) for the PIM-3 was almost equal to the AU-ROC of pSOFA score, i.e., 0.9554 (95% CI: 0.918–0.992). Both scores were positively associated with each other (r=0.807, <0.0001) Conclusion: Both PIM-3 and pSOFA scores were effective in predicting mortality in critically ill children.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿科死亡率指数(PIM)-3 和儿科连续器官功能衰竭评估(pSOFA)评分在预测儿科重症监护病房死亡率方面的比较
研究目的本研究旨在评估和比较儿科死亡率指数(PIM)-3 和儿科序贯器官衰竭评估(pSOFA)评分,以预测儿科重症监护病房(PICU)的死亡率:这项横断面研究在儿科重症监护病房进行,为期一年。所有在指定研究日入住 PICU 的 1 个月至 12 岁的连续患者均被纳入研究(400 人)。入院当天使用安卓计算器应用程序计算死亡率评分:非幸存者组(48 人)的 PIM-3 平均得分(-0.81(-2.05 至-0.44))高于幸存者组(352 人)的 PIM-3 平均得分(-4.67(-5.83 至-4.05)),P<0.001。非幸存者组的 pSOFA 评分也较高,即四分位数间距(IQR)为 11(8-11),而幸存者组为 3(IQR)(2-5),差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。据报道,PIM-3 的灵敏度和特异度中值分别为 97.46% 和 86.67%。pSOFA 的灵敏度和特异度中值分别为 97.72% 和 85.11%。PIM-3的收件人操作特征下面积(AU-ROC)为0.9145(95% 置信区间[CI]:0.8595-0.9695),与pSOFA评分的AU-ROC几乎相等,即0.9554(95% CI:0.918-0.992)。两个评分之间呈正相关(r=0.807,<0.0001):PIM-3和pSOFA评分都能有效预测重症儿童的死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
REVERSE-PHASE HIGH-PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR THE QUANTIFICATION OF SUGAMMADEX IN BULK AND PHARMACEUTICAL DOSAGE FORM CLINICAL PROFILE AND PREGNANCY OUTCOMES OF COVID POSITIVE PREGNANT WOMEN IN PHASE I ANDII INFECTION – A COMPARATIVE STUDY EFFECTIVENESS OF WRIST BLOCK FOR SURGERY OF FRACTURE PROXIMAL INTERPHALANGEAL JOINT: A CASE REPORT COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN EARLY AND LATE LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY IN TREATMENT OF ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS IN BUNDELKHAND REGION POST-OPERATIVE URINARY RETENTION AFTER SPINAL ANESTHESIA IN HERNIA SURGERY: A PROSPECTIVE, COMPARATIVE DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY BETWEEN ROPIVACAINE HEAVY 0.75% AND BUPIVACAINE HEAVY 0.5%
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1