在急诊科接受气管插管的重症成人中验证困难气道生理评分 (DAPS)

Shahan Waheed, J. Razzak, Nadeem Ullah Khan, A. Raheem, A. Mian
{"title":"在急诊科接受气管插管的重症成人中验证困难气道生理评分 (DAPS)","authors":"Shahan Waheed, J. Razzak, Nadeem Ullah Khan, A. Raheem, A. Mian","doi":"10.1155/2024/6600829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Critically ill patients have increased risk of cardiovascular collapse following endotracheal intubation due to physiological instability. This study aims to validate the Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) in adults to predict the risk of serious outcomes in the emergency department of a tertiary care private hospital. Methods. This is a cohort study conducted in the emergency department (ED) from 2021 to 2022. Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) was derived from a sample of 1021 patients through a retrospective study. The variables in the score were age, gender, time of intubation, vitals and vomiting at presentation, pH <7.3, fever, physician’s anticipation for patient decline, and agitation. The model performance was assessed prospectively on a separate dataset (n = 326) using train-test split method. Postintubation desaturation, hypotension, cardiac arrest, and mortality postintubation were the serious outcomes. ROC analysis, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were used to assess score validity. Results. Our study includes 326 patients, of which 123 (37.7%) were males and 203 (62.2%) were females. The sample was divided into high-risk (DAPS ≥10) group, n = 194 with mean age of 52 (SD = ±18) years, and low-risk (DAPS <10) group, n = 132 with mean age of 47.7 (SD = ±17.4) years. The shock index ≥0.9 was in 128 (66%), while it was <0.9 in low-risk n = 111 (84%), p value <0.001. Similarly, pH <7.3 was seen in 70 (36.1%) in high-risk group compared to 4 (3%) in low-risk group, p value <0.001. Cardiac arrest was observed in 56 (17.2%) patients, of which 45 (23.2%) were in high-risk and 11 (8.3%) in low-risk groups (p<0.001). Hypotension was the primary outcome in the high-risk group 100 (51.5%) versus 32 (24.2%) in low-risk group (p<0.001). The DAPS of 10 had an area under the curve of 0.865 (0.71–0.84). The sensitivity of DAPS was 78.5%, specificity 77.9%, and accuracy 78.2%. Conclusion. The score can accurately predict serious outcomes in critically ill adult patients with physiologically difficult airway demonstrating good sensitivity and specificity.","PeriodicalId":507426,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine International","volume":"12 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Endotracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department\",\"authors\":\"Shahan Waheed, J. Razzak, Nadeem Ullah Khan, A. Raheem, A. Mian\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/6600829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Critically ill patients have increased risk of cardiovascular collapse following endotracheal intubation due to physiological instability. This study aims to validate the Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) in adults to predict the risk of serious outcomes in the emergency department of a tertiary care private hospital. Methods. This is a cohort study conducted in the emergency department (ED) from 2021 to 2022. Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) was derived from a sample of 1021 patients through a retrospective study. The variables in the score were age, gender, time of intubation, vitals and vomiting at presentation, pH <7.3, fever, physician’s anticipation for patient decline, and agitation. The model performance was assessed prospectively on a separate dataset (n = 326) using train-test split method. Postintubation desaturation, hypotension, cardiac arrest, and mortality postintubation were the serious outcomes. ROC analysis, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were used to assess score validity. Results. Our study includes 326 patients, of which 123 (37.7%) were males and 203 (62.2%) were females. The sample was divided into high-risk (DAPS ≥10) group, n = 194 with mean age of 52 (SD = ±18) years, and low-risk (DAPS <10) group, n = 132 with mean age of 47.7 (SD = ±17.4) years. The shock index ≥0.9 was in 128 (66%), while it was <0.9 in low-risk n = 111 (84%), p value <0.001. Similarly, pH <7.3 was seen in 70 (36.1%) in high-risk group compared to 4 (3%) in low-risk group, p value <0.001. Cardiac arrest was observed in 56 (17.2%) patients, of which 45 (23.2%) were in high-risk and 11 (8.3%) in low-risk groups (p<0.001). Hypotension was the primary outcome in the high-risk group 100 (51.5%) versus 32 (24.2%) in low-risk group (p<0.001). The DAPS of 10 had an area under the curve of 0.865 (0.71–0.84). The sensitivity of DAPS was 78.5%, specificity 77.9%, and accuracy 78.2%. Conclusion. The score can accurately predict serious outcomes in critically ill adult patients with physiologically difficult airway demonstrating good sensitivity and specificity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine International\",\"volume\":\"12 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6600829\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6600829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。危重病人在气管插管后因生理不稳定而导致心血管衰竭的风险增加。本研究旨在验证成人气道困难生理评分(DAPS),以预测一家三级私立医院急诊科发生严重后果的风险。研究方法这是一项于 2021 年至 2022 年在急诊科(ED)进行的队列研究。气道困难生理评分(DAPS)是通过回顾性研究从 1021 名患者样本中得出的。该评分的变量包括年龄、性别、插管时间、生命体征和就诊时呕吐、pH 值<7.3、发热、医生对患者病情恶化的预期以及躁动。采用训练-测试分离法在一个单独的数据集(n = 326)上对模型性能进行了前瞻性评估。严重后果包括插管后不饱和、低血压、心脏骤停和插管后死亡。采用 ROC 分析、灵敏度、特异性、PPV 和 NPV 来评估评分的有效性。研究结果我们的研究包括 326 例患者,其中 123 例(37.7%)为男性,203 例(62.2%)为女性。样本分为高危(DAPS ≥10)组和低危(DAPS <10)组,高危组为 194 人,平均年龄为 52(SD = ±18)岁,低危组为 132 人,平均年龄为 47.7(SD = ±17.4)岁。休克指数≥0.9的有128人(66%),而低风险组中<0.9的有111人(84%),P值<0.001。同样,高风险组中有 70 人(36.1%)pH 值<7.3,而低风险组中只有 4 人(3%),P 值<0.001。56例(17.2%)患者出现心脏骤停,其中高危组45例(23.2%),低危组11例(8.3%)(P<0.001)。低血压是高风险组 100 例(51.5%)和低风险组 32 例(24.2%)患者的主要结果(P<0.001)。DAPS 10 的曲线下面积为 0.865(0.71-0.84)。DAPS 的灵敏度为 78.5%,特异度为 77.9%,准确度为 78.2%。结论该评分可准确预测患有生理性气道困难的成年重症患者的严重后果,具有良好的灵敏度和特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Validation of Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Endotracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department
Background. Critically ill patients have increased risk of cardiovascular collapse following endotracheal intubation due to physiological instability. This study aims to validate the Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) in adults to predict the risk of serious outcomes in the emergency department of a tertiary care private hospital. Methods. This is a cohort study conducted in the emergency department (ED) from 2021 to 2022. Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) was derived from a sample of 1021 patients through a retrospective study. The variables in the score were age, gender, time of intubation, vitals and vomiting at presentation, pH <7.3, fever, physician’s anticipation for patient decline, and agitation. The model performance was assessed prospectively on a separate dataset (n = 326) using train-test split method. Postintubation desaturation, hypotension, cardiac arrest, and mortality postintubation were the serious outcomes. ROC analysis, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were used to assess score validity. Results. Our study includes 326 patients, of which 123 (37.7%) were males and 203 (62.2%) were females. The sample was divided into high-risk (DAPS ≥10) group, n = 194 with mean age of 52 (SD = ±18) years, and low-risk (DAPS <10) group, n = 132 with mean age of 47.7 (SD = ±17.4) years. The shock index ≥0.9 was in 128 (66%), while it was <0.9 in low-risk n = 111 (84%), p value <0.001. Similarly, pH <7.3 was seen in 70 (36.1%) in high-risk group compared to 4 (3%) in low-risk group, p value <0.001. Cardiac arrest was observed in 56 (17.2%) patients, of which 45 (23.2%) were in high-risk and 11 (8.3%) in low-risk groups (p<0.001). Hypotension was the primary outcome in the high-risk group 100 (51.5%) versus 32 (24.2%) in low-risk group (p<0.001). The DAPS of 10 had an area under the curve of 0.865 (0.71–0.84). The sensitivity of DAPS was 78.5%, specificity 77.9%, and accuracy 78.2%. Conclusion. The score can accurately predict serious outcomes in critically ill adult patients with physiologically difficult airway demonstrating good sensitivity and specificity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Validation of Difficult Airway Physiological Score (DAPS) in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Endotracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department Are We Overusing Coagulation Studies in the Emergency Department? Retracted: Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Invasive Cervical Carcinoma by Cervical Biopsy under Colposcopy and Analysis of Factors Influencing Retracted: Relationship between Peripheral Blood miR-181c, miR-101, and Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Complicated with Acute Stroke Retracted: Application of Doctor-Nurse-Patient Co-Decision-Making Nursing Intervention Based on Evidence-Based Problems in the Rehabilitation of Acute Ankle Lateral Collateral Ligament Injury
×
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