Prognostic Scores for Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill Patients.

IF 2 Q1 NURSING Nursing Reports Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.3390/nursrep14040264

Wisble Pereira Sousa, Marcia Cristina da Silva Magro, Alberto Augusto Martins Paiva, Ruth Silva Rodrigues Vasconcelos, Abraão Alves Dos Reis, Wellington Luiz de Lima, Tayse Tâmara da Paixão Duarte

{"title":"Prognostic Scores for Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill Patients.","authors":"Wisble Pereira Sousa, Marcia Cristina da Silva Magro, Alberto Augusto Martins Paiva, Ruth Silva Rodrigues Vasconcelos, Abraão Alves Dos Reis, Wellington Luiz de Lima, Tayse Tâmara da Paixão Duarte","doi":"10.3390/nursrep14040264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Numerous prognostic scores have been developed and used in intensive care; however, the applicability and effectiveness of these scores in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury may vary due to the characteristics of this population.Objective: To assess the predictive capacity of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (SAPS III), Sequential Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Nursing Activities Score (NAS) prognostic scoring systems for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.Methods: Cohort, prospective and quantitative study with follow-up of 141 critical patients in intensive care. A questionnaire was used to collect information about the capacity of prognostic scoring systems to predict AKI. Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney tests were used and the statistical significance was considered to be at two-sided p < 0.05.Results: It was revealed that 41.85% of patients developed acute kidney injury during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit and indicated greater severity assessed by the medians of prognostic scoring systems-SAPS III [55 (42-65 vs. 38 (32-52), p < 0.001], SOFA [3.3 (2.26-5.00) vs. 0.66 (0.06-2.29), p < 0.001] and NAS [90 (75-95) vs. 97 (91-103), p < 0.001]-when compared to patients without kidney damage.Conclusions: The SAPS III, SOFA and NAS prognostic scoring systems showed good predictive capacity for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. This study was not registered.","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":"14 4","pages":"3619-3630"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11587434/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14040264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Numerous prognostic scores have been developed and used in intensive care; however, the applicability and effectiveness of these scores in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury may vary due to the characteristics of this population.

Objective: To assess the predictive capacity of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (SAPS III), Sequential Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Nursing Activities Score (NAS) prognostic scoring systems for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.

Methods: Cohort, prospective and quantitative study with follow-up of 141 critical patients in intensive care. A questionnaire was used to collect information about the capacity of prognostic scoring systems to predict AKI. Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney tests were used and the statistical significance was considered to be at two-sided p < 0.05.

Results: It was revealed that 41.85% of patients developed acute kidney injury during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit and indicated greater severity assessed by the medians of prognostic scoring systems-SAPS III [55 (42-65 vs. 38 (32-52), p < 0.001], SOFA [3.3 (2.26-5.00) vs. 0.66 (0.06-2.29), p < 0.001] and NAS [90 (75-95) vs. 97 (91-103), p < 0.001]-when compared to patients without kidney damage.

Conclusions: The SAPS III, SOFA and NAS prognostic scoring systems showed good predictive capacity for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. This study was not registered.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

重症患者急性肾损伤的预后评分。

背景：在重症监护领域已经开发并使用了许多预后评分；然而，由于急性肾损伤重症患者的特点，这些评分对他们的适用性和有效性可能会有所不同：评估简化急性生理学评分 III（SAPS III）、脓毒症相关器官功能衰竭顺序评估（SOFA）和护理活动评分（NAS）预后评分系统对重症患者急性肾损伤的预测能力：对 141 名重症监护危重患者进行队列、前瞻性和定量研究。采用问卷调查的方式收集有关预后评分系统预测急性肾损伤能力的信息。采用曼-惠特尼检验、Kruskal-Wallis检验和Bonferroni校正曼-惠特尼检验，统计显著性以双侧P<0.05为标准：结果显示，41.85%的患者在重症监护室住院期间出现急性肾损伤，并且根据预后评分系统--SAPS III的中位数[55 (42-65 vs. 38 (32-52)，P＜0.05]]评估，其严重程度更高。38 (32-52), p < 0.001]、SOFA [3.3 (2.26-5.00) vs. 0.66 (0.06-2.29), p < 0.001]和NAS [90 (75-95) vs. 97 (91-103), p < 0.001]：结论：SAPS III、SOFA和NAS预后评分系统对重症患者急性肾损伤具有良好的预测能力。本研究未注册。

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

Nursing Reports NURSING-

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.