Analyzing how the components of the SOFA score change over time in their contribution to mortality.

Critical care science Pub Date : 2024-11-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.62675/2965-2774.20240030-en
Barbara D Lam, Tristan Struja, Yanran Li, João Matos, Ziyue Chen, Xiaoli Liu, Leo Anthony Celi, Yugang Jia, Jesse Raffa
{"title":"Analyzing how the components of the SOFA score change over time in their contribution to mortality.","authors":"Barbara D Lam, Tristan Struja, Yanran Li, João Matos, Ziyue Chen, Xiaoli Liu, Leo Anthony Celi, Yugang Jia, Jesse Raffa","doi":"10.62675/2965-2774.20240030-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine how each organ component of the SOFA score differs in its contribution to mortality risk and how that contribution may change over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the contribution of each organ component to mortality risk on Days 1 and 7 of an intensive care unit stay. We used data from two publicly available datasets, eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) (208 hospitals) and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) (1 hospital). The odds ratio of each SOFA component that contributed to mortality was calculated. Mortality was defined as death either in the intensive care unit or within 72 hours of discharge from the intensive care unit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7,871 intensive care unit stays from eICU-CRD and 4,926 intensive care unit stays from MIMIC-IV were included. Liver dysfunction was most predictive of mortality on Day 1 in both cohorts (OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4; OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4, respectively). In the eICU-CRD cohort, central nervous system dysfunction was most predictive of mortality on Day 7 (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.4 - 1.5). In the MIMIC-IV cohort, respiratory dysfunction (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.3 - 1.5) and cardiovascular dysfunction (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.3 - 1.5) were most predictive of mortality on Day 7.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SOFA score may be an oversimplification of how dysfunction of different organ systems contributes to mortality over time. Further research at a more granular timescale is needed to explore how the SOFA score can evolve and be ameliorated.</p>","PeriodicalId":72721,"journal":{"name":"Critical care science","volume":"36 ","pages":"e20240030en"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20240030-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Determine how each organ component of the SOFA score differs in its contribution to mortality risk and how that contribution may change over time.

Methods: We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to assess the contribution of each organ component to mortality risk on Days 1 and 7 of an intensive care unit stay. We used data from two publicly available datasets, eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) (208 hospitals) and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) (1 hospital). The odds ratio of each SOFA component that contributed to mortality was calculated. Mortality was defined as death either in the intensive care unit or within 72 hours of discharge from the intensive care unit.

Results: A total of 7,871 intensive care unit stays from eICU-CRD and 4,926 intensive care unit stays from MIMIC-IV were included. Liver dysfunction was most predictive of mortality on Day 1 in both cohorts (OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4; OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4, respectively). In the eICU-CRD cohort, central nervous system dysfunction was most predictive of mortality on Day 7 (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.4 - 1.5). In the MIMIC-IV cohort, respiratory dysfunction (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.3 - 1.5) and cardiovascular dysfunction (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.3 - 1.5) were most predictive of mortality on Day 7.

Conclusion: The SOFA score may be an oversimplification of how dysfunction of different organ systems contributes to mortality over time. Further research at a more granular timescale is needed to explore how the SOFA score can evolve and be ameliorated.

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
分析 SOFA 分数的各个组成部分对死亡率的影响随时间的推移而发生的变化。
目标:确定SOFA评分的每个器官成分对死亡风险的影响有何不同,以及这种影响如何随时间而变化:确定SOFA评分中各器官成分对死亡风险的影响有何不同,以及这种影响会随着时间的推移发生怎样的变化:我们进行了多变量逻辑回归分析,以评估重症监护病房住院第 1 天和第 7 天各器官成分对死亡风险的影响。我们使用了两个公开数据集的数据,即 eICU 协作研究数据库(eICU-CRD)(208 家医院)和重症监护医学信息市场 IV(MIMIC-IV)(1 家医院)。计算了导致死亡率的 SOFA 各组成部分的几率比例。死亡定义为在重症监护病房内或从重症监护病房出院后 72 小时内死亡:结果:共纳入了7871例eICU-CRD重症监护病房住院病例和4926例MIMIC-IV重症监护病房住院病例。在两个队列中,肝功能异常对第 1 天死亡率的预测性最高(OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4; OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4,分别为 1.3; 95%CI 1.2 - 1.4)。在 eICU-CRD 队列中,中枢神经系统功能障碍最能预测第 7 天的死亡率(OR 1.4;95%CI 1.4 - 1.5)。在MIMIC-IV队列中,呼吸功能障碍(OR 1.4;95%CI 1.3 - 1.5)和心血管功能障碍(OR 1.4;95%CI 1.3 - 1.5)最能预测第7天的死亡率:SOFA评分可能过度简化了不同器官系统的功能障碍对死亡率的长期影响。需要在更精细的时间尺度上开展进一步研究,以探索 SOFA 评分如何演变和改善。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analyzing how the components of the SOFA score change over time in their contribution to mortality. To: Clinical outcomes of intensive care unit-acquired weakness in critically ill COVID-19 patients. A prospective cohort study. Challenges in using the dynamic components of the SOFA score in health care databases. Impact of intensive care unit admission on cancer patients: enhancing long-term survival through better understanding. Rate of non-metastatic solid tumor progression following critical illness: a prospective cohort study of UK Biobank participants.
×
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