Evaluation of patients with decreased general condition and comparing HOTEL, WPS, and REMS for mortality prediction.

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Scientific Reports Pub Date : 2025-04-08 DOI:10.1038/s41598-025-97386-5
Emine Aykol, Mehmet Cihat Demir, Kudret Selki, Hasan Sultanoğlu
{"title":"Evaluation of patients with decreased general condition and comparing HOTEL, WPS, and REMS for mortality prediction.","authors":"Emine Aykol, Mehmet Cihat Demir, Kudret Selki, Hasan Sultanoğlu","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-97386-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The emergency department (ED) plays a crucial role in evaluating patients with decreased general condition (DGC). Prompt diagnosis and precise risk stratification enhances clinical care outcomes. This study aimed to reveal which scoring system is better for predicting mortality in patients with DGC. This single-center prospective study was conducted between 1 March 2021 and 1 June 2021 in a tertiary university hospital's ED. All patients presented with DGC were included. The scores assessed upon ED admission for patients include the Hypotension, Oxygen saturation, low Temperature, ECG changes, and Loss of independence, abbreviated as HOTEL score, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), and the Worthing Physiological Scoring (WPS). The study aimed to compare the scoring systems to identify which is the best mortality predictor. Independent risk factors for 30-day mortality were analyzed using binary logistic regression and ROC curves to assess the effectiveness of HOTEL, REMS, and WPS scores in predicting mortality. The study was conducted with 137 DGC patients. The median age of patients presented to the ED with DGC was 77 (66.5-87), and 50.4% were male. 52.6% of patients died within one month. Analysis of mortality risk factors revealed that gender, age, day of admission, visit type, home oxygen, urinary catheter use, and speech status were not independent risk factors. For one-month mortality prediction, AUCs were: HOTEL 0.644 (cut-off 1), REMS 0.635 (cut-off 8), WPS 0.547 (cut-off 5). For mechanical ventilation: HOTEL 0.689 (10), REMS 0.790 (10), WPS 0.777 (4). For ICU admission: HOTEL 0.697 (2), REMS 0.770 (9), WPS 0.728 (4). Both the HOTEL and REMS scoring systems have moderate prognostic value in predicting mortality in patients with a DGC. The REMS, and WPS scores are also more helpful in determining the need for intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"11956"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11978754/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97386-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The emergency department (ED) plays a crucial role in evaluating patients with decreased general condition (DGC). Prompt diagnosis and precise risk stratification enhances clinical care outcomes. This study aimed to reveal which scoring system is better for predicting mortality in patients with DGC. This single-center prospective study was conducted between 1 March 2021 and 1 June 2021 in a tertiary university hospital's ED. All patients presented with DGC were included. The scores assessed upon ED admission for patients include the Hypotension, Oxygen saturation, low Temperature, ECG changes, and Loss of independence, abbreviated as HOTEL score, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), and the Worthing Physiological Scoring (WPS). The study aimed to compare the scoring systems to identify which is the best mortality predictor. Independent risk factors for 30-day mortality were analyzed using binary logistic regression and ROC curves to assess the effectiveness of HOTEL, REMS, and WPS scores in predicting mortality. The study was conducted with 137 DGC patients. The median age of patients presented to the ED with DGC was 77 (66.5-87), and 50.4% were male. 52.6% of patients died within one month. Analysis of mortality risk factors revealed that gender, age, day of admission, visit type, home oxygen, urinary catheter use, and speech status were not independent risk factors. For one-month mortality prediction, AUCs were: HOTEL 0.644 (cut-off 1), REMS 0.635 (cut-off 8), WPS 0.547 (cut-off 5). For mechanical ventilation: HOTEL 0.689 (10), REMS 0.790 (10), WPS 0.777 (4). For ICU admission: HOTEL 0.697 (2), REMS 0.770 (9), WPS 0.728 (4). Both the HOTEL and REMS scoring systems have moderate prognostic value in predicting mortality in patients with a DGC. The REMS, and WPS scores are also more helpful in determining the need for intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation.

Abstract Image

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
评估一般情况下降的患者并比较HOTEL、WPS和REMS对死亡率的预测。
急诊科(ED)在评估一般情况下降(DGC)患者中起着至关重要的作用。及时诊断和精确的风险分层提高了临床护理结果。本研究旨在揭示哪种评分系统能更好地预测DGC患者的死亡率。该单中心前瞻性研究于2021年3月1日至2021年6月1日在一家三级大学医院的急诊科进行,纳入了所有DGC患者。患者入院时的评分包括低血压、血氧饱和度、低温、心电图变化、独立性丧失,简称HOTEL评分、快速急诊医学评分(REMS)、Worthing生理评分(WPS)。该研究旨在比较评分系统,以确定哪个是最好的死亡率预测器。采用二元logistic回归和ROC曲线分析30天死亡率的独立危险因素,评估HOTEL、REMS和WPS评分预测死亡率的有效性。该研究在137例DGC患者中进行。在ED就诊的DGC患者中位年龄为77岁(66.5-87岁),其中50.4%为男性。52.6%的患者在1个月内死亡。死亡危险因素分析显示,性别、年龄、入院日期、就诊类型、家庭氧气、导尿管使用和语言状况不是独立的危险因素。对于一个月死亡率预测,auc为:HOTEL 0.644(截止值1),REMS 0.635(截止值8),WPS 0.547(截止值5)。对于机械通气:HOTEL 0.689 (10), REMS 0.790 (10), WPS 0.777(4)。对于ICU住院:HOTEL 0.697 (2), REMS 0.770 (9), WPS 0.728(4)。HOTEL和REMS评分系统在预测DGC患者死亡率方面均具有中等预后价值。REMS和WPS评分在确定是否需要重症监护病房和机械通气方面也更有帮助。
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
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
期刊最新文献
Correlation between human expert macular fluid height assessment and fluid volume quantification in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Effects of immersive training on motor competence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multimerin1 and not Galectin-8 tempers WNT signaling to promote gastric chief cell differentiation. High-throughput adult Caenorhabditis elegans viability monitoring system. An adaptive multi-scale spatio-temporal graph network for robust MOOC dropout prediction.
×
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:604180095
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