院前败血症预测模型的性能评价。

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006586
Ithan D Peltan, Kasra Rahmati, Joseph R Bledsoe, Yukiko Yoneoka, Felicia Alvarez, Matthew Plendl, Peter P Taillac, Scott T Youngquist, Matthew M Samore, Catherine L Hough, Samuel M Brown
{"title":"院前败血症预测模型的性能评价。","authors":"Ithan D Peltan, Kasra Rahmati, Joseph R Bledsoe, Yukiko Yoneoka, Felicia Alvarez, Matthew Plendl, Peter P Taillac, Scott T Youngquist, Matthew M Samore, Catherine L Hough, Samuel M Brown","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Evaluate prediction models designed or used to identify patients with sepsis in the prehospital setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Nested case-control study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Four emergency departments (EDs) in Utah.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult nontrauma patient with available prehospital care records who received ED treatment during 2018 after arrival via ambulance.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Of 16,620 patients arriving to a study ED via ambulance, 1,037 (6.2%) met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED. Complete prehospital care data was available for 434 case patients with sepsis and 434 control patients without sepsis. Model discrimination for the outcome of meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was quantified using the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), which yields a value equal to outcome prevalence for a noninformative model. Of 21 evaluated prediction models, only the Prehospital Early Sepsis Detection (PRESEP) model (AUPRC, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.27-0.41) outperformed unaided infection assessment by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel (AUPRC, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13-0.23]) for prehospital prediction of patients who would meet Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED ( p < 0.001). PRESEP also outperformed the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (AUPRC, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.11-0.16]; p < 0.001). Among 28 evaluated dichotomous predictors of ED sepsis, sensitivity ranged from 6% to 91% and positive predictive value 8-100%. PRESEP exhibited modest sensitivity (60%) and positive predictive value (20%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PRESEP was the only evaluated prediction model that demonstrated better discrimination than unaided EMS infection assessment for the identification of ambulance-transported adult patients who met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e973-e978"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12324946/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance Evaluation of Prehospital Sepsis Prediction Models.\",\"authors\":\"Ithan D Peltan, Kasra Rahmati, Joseph R Bledsoe, Yukiko Yoneoka, Felicia Alvarez, Matthew Plendl, Peter P Taillac, Scott T Youngquist, Matthew M Samore, Catherine L Hough, Samuel M Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006586\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Evaluate prediction models designed or used to identify patients with sepsis in the prehospital setting.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Nested case-control study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Four emergency departments (EDs) in Utah.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult nontrauma patient with available prehospital care records who received ED treatment during 2018 after arrival via ambulance.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Of 16,620 patients arriving to a study ED via ambulance, 1,037 (6.2%) met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED. Complete prehospital care data was available for 434 case patients with sepsis and 434 control patients without sepsis. Model discrimination for the outcome of meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was quantified using the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), which yields a value equal to outcome prevalence for a noninformative model. Of 21 evaluated prediction models, only the Prehospital Early Sepsis Detection (PRESEP) model (AUPRC, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.27-0.41) outperformed unaided infection assessment by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel (AUPRC, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13-0.23]) for prehospital prediction of patients who would meet Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED ( p < 0.001). PRESEP also outperformed the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (AUPRC, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.11-0.16]; p < 0.001). Among 28 evaluated dichotomous predictors of ED sepsis, sensitivity ranged from 6% to 91% and positive predictive value 8-100%. PRESEP exhibited modest sensitivity (60%) and positive predictive value (20%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PRESEP was the only evaluated prediction model that demonstrated better discrimination than unaided EMS infection assessment for the identification of ambulance-transported adult patients who met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e973-e978\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12324946/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006586\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006586","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价院前设计或用于识别脓毒症患者的预测模型。设计:巢式病例对照研究。环境:犹他州的四个急诊科(ed)。患者:有院前护理记录的成人非创伤患者,在2018年通过救护车到达后接受了ED治疗。干预措施:没有。测量和主要结果:在通过救护车到达研究急诊科的16,620例患者中,1,037例(6.2%)在急诊科符合败血症-3标准。434例败血症患者和434例对照组无败血症患者的完整院前护理数据可用。在ED中,满足脓毒症-3标准的结果的模型歧视使用精确度召回曲线(AUPRC)下的面积进行量化,其产生的值等于非信息模型的结果患病率。在21个评估的预测模型中,只有院前早期脓毒症检测(PRESEP)模型(AUPRC, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.27-0.41])优于急诊医疗服务(EMS)人员的独立感染评估(AUPRC, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13-0.23]),在ED中预测符合脓毒症-3标准的患者(p < 0.001)。PRESEP也优于快速序贯器官衰竭评估评分(AUPRC, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.11-0.16];P < 0.001)。在评估的28个ED败血症的二分类预测因子中,敏感性范围为6%至91%,阳性预测值为8-100%。PRESEP具有中等敏感性(60%)和阳性预测值(20%)。结论:PRESEP是唯一一种被评估的预测模型,在识别急诊救护车运送的符合脓毒症-3标准的成人患者方面,它比独立的EMS感染评估具有更好的辨别能力。
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
Performance Evaluation of Prehospital Sepsis Prediction Models.

Objectives: Evaluate prediction models designed or used to identify patients with sepsis in the prehospital setting.

Design: Nested case-control study.

Setting: Four emergency departments (EDs) in Utah.

Patients: Adult nontrauma patient with available prehospital care records who received ED treatment during 2018 after arrival via ambulance.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Of 16,620 patients arriving to a study ED via ambulance, 1,037 (6.2%) met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED. Complete prehospital care data was available for 434 case patients with sepsis and 434 control patients without sepsis. Model discrimination for the outcome of meeting Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED was quantified using the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), which yields a value equal to outcome prevalence for a noninformative model. Of 21 evaluated prediction models, only the Prehospital Early Sepsis Detection (PRESEP) model (AUPRC, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.27-0.41) outperformed unaided infection assessment by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel (AUPRC, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.13-0.23]) for prehospital prediction of patients who would meet Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED ( p < 0.001). PRESEP also outperformed the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (AUPRC, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.11-0.16]; p < 0.001). Among 28 evaluated dichotomous predictors of ED sepsis, sensitivity ranged from 6% to 91% and positive predictive value 8-100%. PRESEP exhibited modest sensitivity (60%) and positive predictive value (20%).

Conclusions: PRESEP was the only evaluated prediction model that demonstrated better discrimination than unaided EMS infection assessment for the identification of ambulance-transported adult patients who met Sepsis-3 criteria in the ED.

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
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
期刊最新文献
The authors reply. The authors reply. Plasma Levels of Soluble ST2 Reflect Extrapulmonary Organ Dysfunction and Predict Outcomes in Acute Respiratory Failure: Beware of Potential Confounders. The authors reply. Attracting Emergency Medicine Graduates to Surgical Critical Care Training Programs.
×
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