切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (03) : 285 -288. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6902.2019.03.004

所属专题: 专题评论 文献

论著

PSI、APACHEⅡ和SOFA三种评分对医院获得性肺炎预后的评估价值
张玉江1, 张巧1, 任之栋1, 马千里1, 王长征1,()   
  1. 1. 400037 重庆,陆军军医大学(第三军医大学)新桥医院呼吸内科·全军呼吸内科研究所
  • 收稿日期:2019-03-03 出版日期:2019-06-20
  • 通信作者: 王长征
  • 基金资助:
    国家科技支撑计划(2013BAI09B09)

Comparative study on values of PSI, APACHEⅡ and SOFA scores in prognosis of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia

Yujiang Zhang1, Qiao Zhang1, Zhidong Ren1, Qianli Ma1, Changzheng Wang1,()   

  1. 1. Institute of Respiratory Diseases, Department of Respiratory, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Military Medical University, Chongqing 400037, China
  • Received:2019-03-03 Published:2019-06-20
  • Corresponding author: Changzheng Wang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wang Changzheng, Email:
引用本文:

张玉江, 张巧, 任之栋, 马千里, 王长征. PSI、APACHEⅡ和SOFA三种评分对医院获得性肺炎预后的评估价值[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2019, 12(03): 285-288.

Yujiang Zhang, Qiao Zhang, Zhidong Ren, Qianli Ma, Changzheng Wang. Comparative study on values of PSI, APACHEⅡ and SOFA scores in prognosis of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia[J]. Chinese Journal of Lung Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2019, 12(03): 285-288.

目的

探讨PSI、APACHEⅡ和SOFA评分对医院获得性肺炎患者预后的判断价值以及年龄对SOFA评分效能的影响。

方法

回顾性分析我院2016年1月至2017年12月收治的80例医院获得性肺炎患者的资料,其中未手术组医院获得性肺炎患者40例,围手术组医院获得性肺炎患者40例,用诊断为医院获得性肺炎的24 h内各项实验检查结果和生理参数最差值分别进行PSI、APACHEⅡ和SOFA评分。以30 d后是否存活作为预后指标,绘制受试者工作特征曲线(receiver operating characteristic curve, ROC),比较三种评分的差别。对SOFA评分在借鉴APACHⅡ年龄评分的基础上再次评分,比较SOFA评分在加权年龄前后评分效能的变化。

结果

ROC曲线分析表明,三种评分均可预测医院获得性肺炎30 d病死率。40例未手术组医院获得性肺炎PSI、APACHEⅡ、SOFA曲线下面积分别为0.75、0.69、0.66。40例围手术组医院获得性肺炎PSI、APACHEⅡ、SOFA曲线下面积分别为0.87、0.64、0.70。80例医院获得性肺炎PSI、APACHEⅡ、SOFA曲线下面积分别为0.80、0.73、0.66。对SOFA评分进行年龄加权后,其40例未手术组医院获得性肺炎曲线下面积为0.75;40例围手术组医院获得性肺炎曲线下面积为0.75;80例医院获得性肺炎曲线下面积为0.72。

结论

PSI评分能较好的评价医院获得性肺炎患者的预后,年龄对医院获得性肺炎的预后评价不容忽视。

Objective

To investigate the prognostic value of PSI, APACHEⅡ and SOFA scores in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia and the effect of age on the efficacy of SOFA score.

Methods

The data of 80 patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia admitted in our hospital from January 2016 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 40 had non-perioperative hospital-acquired pneumonia and 40 had perioperative hospital-acquired pneumonia. Each group was evaluated by the PSI, APACHEⅡand SOFA scores with the worst physiological parameters within 24 hours after confirmed diagnosis of hospital-acquired pneumonia. Using the survival rate after 30 days as a prognostic index, the operating characteristic curves (ROCs) of the receivers were drawn to compare the difference of the three scores. On the basis of APACHEⅡ age scores, SOFA scores were re-graded to compare the effect of SOFA scores before and after age-weighting.

Results

ROC analysis showed that the three scores could predict the 30-day mortality of hospital-acquired pneumonia. For the 40 cases of non-perioperative hospital-acquired pneumonia, the areas under the curve (AUCs) of ROC in PSI, APACHEⅡ and SOFA were 0.75, 0.69 and 0.66, respectively. And for the 40 cases of perioperative hospital-acquired pneumonia, the AUCs in PSI, APACHEⅡ and SOFA were 0.87, 0.64 and 0.70, respectively. And for the 80 cases of hospital-acquired pneumonia, the AUCs in PSI, APACHEⅡ and SOFA were 0.80, 0.73 and 0.66, respectively. After age-weighting of the SOFA scores, the AUC of the 40 cases of non-perioperative hospital-acquired pneumonia was 0.75, the AUC of the 40 cases of perioperative hospital-acquired pneumonia was 0.75, and the AUC of the 80 cases of hospital-acquired pneumonia was 0.72.

Conclusion

The efficacy of PSI is better than that of APACHEⅡ and SOFA regardless of whether the patient is in surgery, and the efficacy of SOFA score is increased after age-weighting.

表1 80例HAP患者一般资料,PSI、APACHEⅡ及SOFA评分比较± SD/Md(p25,p75)
图1 80例HAP患者PSI、APACHEⅡ及SOFA评分ROC曲线下面积比较;注:A:为40例未手术组HAP患者三种评分ROC曲线;B:为40例围手术组HAP患者三种评分ROC曲线;C:为80例HAP患者三种评分ROC曲线
图2 80例HAP患者SOFA、SOFAAGE评分ROC曲线下面积比较;注:A:为40例未手术组HAP患者两种评分ROC曲线;B:为40例围手术HAP组患者两种评分ROC曲线;C:为80例HAP患者两种评分ROC曲线
1
中华医学会呼吸病学分会感染学组. 中国成人医院获得性肺炎与呼吸机相关性肺炎诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志,2018, 41(4): 255-260.
2
Flandem SA, Collard HR, Saint S. Nosocomial pneumonia: state of the science[J]. Am J Infect Control, 2006, 34(2): 84-93.
3
Micek ST, Chew B, Hampton N, et al. A Case-Control Study Assessing the Impact of Nonventilated Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia on Patient Outcomes[J]. Chest, 2016, 150(5): 1008-1014.
4
Burgmann H, Hiesmayr JM, Savey A, et al. Impact of nosocomial infections on clinical outcome and resource consumption in critically ill patients[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2010, 36(9): 1597-1601.
5
Zhang ZX, Yong Y, Tan WC, et al. Prognostic factors for mortality due to pneumonia among adults from different age groups in Singapore and mortality predictions based on PSI and CURB-65[J]. Singapore Med J, 2018, 59(4): 190-198.
6
中华医学会呼吸病学分会. 医院获得性肺炎诊断和治疗指南(草案)[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志,1999, 22(4): 201.
7
Fine MJ, Smith MA, Carson CA, et al. Prognosis and outcomes of Patients with community-acquired pneumonia[J]. A meta-analysis JAMA, 1996, 275(2): 134-141.
8
Knaus WA, DRAper EA, Wager DP, et al. APACHEⅡ:a severity of disease classification system[J]. Crit Care Med, 1985, 13(10): 818-829.
9
Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA(Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfuntion/failure[J]. Intensive Care Med, 1996, 22: 707-710.
10
刘又宁,曹彬,王辉,等. 中国九城市成人医院获得性肺炎微生物学与临床特点调查[J]. 中国结核和呼吸杂志,2012, 35(10): 739-746.
11
焦洋,黄怡. 《2014 NICE临床指南:成人社区和医院获得性肺炎诊断和管理》解读[J]. 中国实用内科杂志,2015, 35(5): 411-413.
12
Legramante JM, Mastropasqua M, Susi B, et al. Prognostic performance of MR-proadrenomedullin in patients with community acquired pneumonia in the Emergency Department compared to clinical severity scores PSI and CURB[J]. PLoS ONE, 2017, 12(11): e0187702.3/15.
13
Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzuerto A, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2007, 44: S27-S72.
14
李慧珍,张海英,赵艳伶. APACHEⅡ评分引入MODS评分系统对ICU危重症患者预后的预测价值[J]. 河北医学,23(4): 568-572.
15
汪颖,王迪芬,付江泉,等. SOFA、qSOFA评分和传统指标对脓毒症预后的判断价值[J]. 中华危重病急救医学,2017, 29(8): 700-704.
16
秦秀菊,林慧艳,刘延兴,等. qSOFA评分对ICU感染患者预后的评估价值:来自真实世界的17年观察性研究[J]. 中华危重病急救医学,2018, 30(6): 544-548.
17
Miyashita N, Kawai Y, Akaike H, et al. Clinical features and the role of atypical pathogens in nursing and healthcare-associated pneumonia( NHCAP): differences between a teaching university hospital and a community hospital[J]. Intern Med, 2012, 51(6): 585-594.
18
Askarian M, Yadollahi M, Assadian O. Point prevalence and risk factors of hospital acquired infections in a cluster of university-affiliated hospitals in Shiraz, Iran[J]. J Infect Public Health, 2012, 5(2): 169-176.
19
吴锡林,毛福荣,诸葛毅. 老年患者医院获得性肺炎死亡危险因素分析[J]. 健康研究,2013, 33(6): 424-426.
20
孔庆华,白久武,王晓如,等. 三种评分系统在老年社区获得性肺炎危险程度分层及病情评估中的应用[J]. 中国呼吸与危重监护杂志,2018, 17(2): 138-143.
21
王盛标,戴新贵,朱惠民. 不同评分系统对社区获得性肺炎患者预后评估价值的研究[J]. 社区医学杂志,2017, 15(17): 38-40.
22
王涛,崔云亮,何超,等. 基础疾病评分和年龄及慢性健康状况评分对危重病患者预后的影响[J]. 临床急诊杂志,2014, 15(2): 85-88.
[1] 张玉江, 张巧, 马千里, 任之栋, 王长征. 动脉血乳酸监测对医院获得性肺炎预后的判断价值[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(06): 496-500.
[2] 王桂明, 牛淑香, 张开刚, 姜梅杰, 张玲, 翟荣慧. 神经外科手术患者医院获得性肺炎的危险因素分析[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2016, 10(01): 49-53.
[3] 李跃, 万玉峰, 何远强, 伏冉, 郑玉龙. 慢性共病患者并发医院获得性肺炎的病原菌分布及影响因素分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(03): 446-449.
[4] 孙康, 李王平, 潘蕾, 金发光. 医院获得性铜绿假单胞菌肺炎危险因素分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(02): 166-170.
[5] 许静, 陈炜, 张鸿, 冯欢. 医院获得性肺炎的治疗及预防进展[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2022, 15(01): 123-126.
[6] 孙康, 李王平, 董轲, 杨铭, 高彦军, 陈敏, 李玉娟, 潘蕾, 金发光. 5 155株医院获得性肺炎致病菌分布和抗菌素敏感性分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2021, 14(03): 277-282.
[7] 张庭秀, 王琴, 施光清, 马李杰, 李福祥, 肖贞良. 生命体征及综合评分在预测热射病患者预后中的价值分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(02): 179-182.
[8] 于明基, 赵延辉, 李雪婷, 尤伟艳, 许航, 任珊. 最高SOFA评分对G/G-主要致病菌致脓毒症患者临床结局的预测[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2020, 06(01): 71-76.
[9] 黄勇波, 黎毅敏. 2016年美国感染病学会HAP/VAP指南:新在何处?[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2016, 02(04): 258-262.
[10] 刘恒均, 王军, 徐莎, 徐鹏. 红细胞分布宽度评估脓毒症患者预后的价值[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 80-84.
[11] 何玉峰. 神经元特异性烯醇化酶对颅脑损伤患者神经功能预后的评估价值[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2019, 05(06): 348-350.
[12] 孙志伟, 刘大东, 王旭, 潘鑫. 血浆microRNA-130a联合APACHE Ⅱ评分预测脓毒症伴血小板减少患者死亡的巢式病例对照研究[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2019, 05(06): 325-329.
[13] 秦震芳, 季金华, 李华, 董菊美, 朱玉梅, 李国民. 侧俯卧位在ICU老年患者HAP综合防控中的效果观察[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2018, 04(04): 212-216.
阅读次数
全文


摘要