危重病人术前风险分层。

Curtis C Copeland, Andrew Young, Tristan Grogan, Eilon Gabel, Anahat K. Dhillon, Vadim Gudzenko
{"title":"危重病人术前风险分层。","authors":"Curtis C Copeland, Andrew Young, Tristan Grogan, Eilon Gabel, Anahat K. Dhillon, Vadim Gudzenko","doi":"10.1097/SA.0000000000000337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"STUDY OBJECTIVE\nRisk assessment historically emphasized cardiac morbidity and mortality in elective, outpatient, non-cardiac surgery. However, critically ill patients increasingly present for therapeutic interventions. Our study investigated the relationship of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, revised cardiac risk index (RCRI), and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score with survival to discharge in critically ill patients with respiratory failure.\n\n\nDESIGN\nRetrospective cohort analysis over a 21-month period.\n\n\nSETTING\nFive adult intensive care units (ICUs) at a single tertiary medical center.\n\n\nPATIENTS\nThree hundred fifty ICU patients in respiratory failure, who underwent 501 procedures with general anesthesia.\n\n\nMEASUREMENTS\nDemographic, clinical, and surgical variables were collected from the pre-anesthesia evaluation forms and preoperative ICU charts. The primary outcome was survival to discharge.\n\n\nMAIN RESULTS\nNinety-six patients (27%) did not survive to discharge. There were significant differences between survivors and non-survivors for ASA (3.7 vs. 3.9, p=0.001), RCRI (1.6 vs. 2.0, p=0.003), and SOFA score (8.1 vs. 11.2, p<0.001). Based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for these relationships, there was only modest discrimination between the groups, ranging from the most useful SOFA (0.68) to less useful RCRI (0.60) and ASA (0.59).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThis single center retrospective study quantified a high perioperative risk for critically ill patients with advanced airways: one in four did not survive to discharge. Preoperative ASA score, RCRI, and SOFA score only partially delineated survivors and non-survivors. Given the existing limitations, future research may identify assessment tools more relevant to discriminating survival outcomes for critically ill patients in the perioperative environment.","PeriodicalId":22104,"journal":{"name":"Survey of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"88","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preoperative risk stratification of critically ill patients.\",\"authors\":\"Curtis C Copeland, Andrew Young, Tristan Grogan, Eilon Gabel, Anahat K. Dhillon, Vadim Gudzenko\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SA.0000000000000337\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"STUDY OBJECTIVE\\nRisk assessment historically emphasized cardiac morbidity and mortality in elective, outpatient, non-cardiac surgery. However, critically ill patients increasingly present for therapeutic interventions. Our study investigated the relationship of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, revised cardiac risk index (RCRI), and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score with survival to discharge in critically ill patients with respiratory failure.\\n\\n\\nDESIGN\\nRetrospective cohort analysis over a 21-month period.\\n\\n\\nSETTING\\nFive adult intensive care units (ICUs) at a single tertiary medical center.\\n\\n\\nPATIENTS\\nThree hundred fifty ICU patients in respiratory failure, who underwent 501 procedures with general anesthesia.\\n\\n\\nMEASUREMENTS\\nDemographic, clinical, and surgical variables were collected from the pre-anesthesia evaluation forms and preoperative ICU charts. The primary outcome was survival to discharge.\\n\\n\\nMAIN RESULTS\\nNinety-six patients (27%) did not survive to discharge. There were significant differences between survivors and non-survivors for ASA (3.7 vs. 3.9, p=0.001), RCRI (1.6 vs. 2.0, p=0.003), and SOFA score (8.1 vs. 11.2, p<0.001). Based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for these relationships, there was only modest discrimination between the groups, ranging from the most useful SOFA (0.68) to less useful RCRI (0.60) and ASA (0.59).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nThis single center retrospective study quantified a high perioperative risk for critically ill patients with advanced airways: one in four did not survive to discharge. Preoperative ASA score, RCRI, and SOFA score only partially delineated survivors and non-survivors. Given the existing limitations, future research may identify assessment tools more relevant to discriminating survival outcomes for critically ill patients in the perioperative environment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Survey of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"88\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Survey of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SA.0000000000000337\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SA.0000000000000337","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 88

摘要

研究目的风险评估历来强调择期、门诊和非心脏手术的心脏发病率和死亡率。然而,危重患者越来越多地出现治疗干预。本研究探讨了美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)分级、修订心脏危险指数(RCRI)和顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分与危重呼吸衰竭患者生存至出院的关系。设计:21个月的回顾性队列分析。在一个三级医疗中心设有5个成人重症监护病房(icu)。患者:350例ICU呼吸衰竭患者,在全身麻醉下进行了501次手术。从麻醉前评估表和术前ICU图表中收集人口学、临床和手术变量。主要终点是存活至出院。主要结果96例(27%)患者未存活至出院。幸存者和非幸存者在ASA (3.7 vs. 3.9, p=0.001)、RCRI (1.6 vs. 2.0, p=0.003)和SOFA评分(8.1 vs. 11.2, p<0.001)方面存在显著差异。根据这些关系的受试者工作特征曲线下的面积,两组之间只有适度的区别,从最有用的SOFA(0.68)到不太有用的RCRI(0.60)和ASA(0.59)。结论:这项单中心回顾性研究量化了晚期气道危重患者围手术期的高风险:四分之一的患者无法存活出院。术前ASA评分、RCRI和SOFA评分仅部分描绘了幸存者和非幸存者。考虑到现有的局限性,未来的研究可能会确定评估工具,更相关的是在围手术期环境中区分危重患者的生存结果。
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
Preoperative risk stratification of critically ill patients.
STUDY OBJECTIVE Risk assessment historically emphasized cardiac morbidity and mortality in elective, outpatient, non-cardiac surgery. However, critically ill patients increasingly present for therapeutic interventions. Our study investigated the relationship of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, revised cardiac risk index (RCRI), and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score with survival to discharge in critically ill patients with respiratory failure. DESIGN Retrospective cohort analysis over a 21-month period. SETTING Five adult intensive care units (ICUs) at a single tertiary medical center. PATIENTS Three hundred fifty ICU patients in respiratory failure, who underwent 501 procedures with general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS Demographic, clinical, and surgical variables were collected from the pre-anesthesia evaluation forms and preoperative ICU charts. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. MAIN RESULTS Ninety-six patients (27%) did not survive to discharge. There were significant differences between survivors and non-survivors for ASA (3.7 vs. 3.9, p=0.001), RCRI (1.6 vs. 2.0, p=0.003), and SOFA score (8.1 vs. 11.2, p<0.001). Based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for these relationships, there was only modest discrimination between the groups, ranging from the most useful SOFA (0.68) to less useful RCRI (0.60) and ASA (0.59). CONCLUSIONS This single center retrospective study quantified a high perioperative risk for critically ill patients with advanced airways: one in four did not survive to discharge. Preoperative ASA score, RCRI, and SOFA score only partially delineated survivors and non-survivors. Given the existing limitations, future research may identify assessment tools more relevant to discriminating survival outcomes for critically ill patients in the perioperative environment.
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
Context is king - obstetric anaesthesia management strategies in limited resource settings. Preoperative Administration of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers: Do We Have Enough “VISION” to Stop It? Implementing a Statistical Model for Protamine Titration: Effects on Coagulation in Cardiac Surgical Patients Vasopressin, Norepinephrine, and Vasodilatory Shock After Cardiac Surgery: Another “VASST” Difference? Prospective Double Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of the Pectoral Nerves (Pecs) Block Type II
×
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