Ricerca avanzata

Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2015 Marzo;81(3) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2015 Marzo;81(3):264-71

FASCICOLI E ARTICOLI   I PIÙ LETTI   eTOC

ULTIMO FASCICOLOMINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA

Rivista di Anestesia, Rianimazione, Terapia Antalgica e Terapia Intensiva


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,036

 

Minerva Anestesiologica 2015 Marzo;81(3):264-71

 ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Comparison of three models for sepsis patient discrimination according to PIRO: predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction

Tafelski S. 1, Nachtigall I. 1, Stengel S. 1, Wernecke K. 2, Spies C. 1

1 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany;
2 Institute of Medical Biometry, Charité University Medicine, Berlin and SOSTANA GmbH, Berlin, Germany

BACKGROUND: Sepsis remains one of the most challenging burdens of critically ill patients. But for interventional studies significant heterogeneity remains in classifying patients. PIRO (Predisposition, Response, Infection and Organ dysfunction) has been introduced as innovative option for improved patient characterization. Aim of this study was to evaluate precision to predict hospital mortality of three different proposed PIRO classification systems.
METHODS: Data were prospectively obtained data in five ICUs in a university hospital in Berlin, Germany including adult patients with sepsis. Three different scoring systems were compared using patient characteristics to classify the population according to all cause hospital mortality risk (Moreno- PIRO, Rubulotta- PIRO and Howell-PIRO).
RESULTS: Two-hundred-seventy-eight sepsis patients were included and reclassified using different PIRO models. All cause hospital mortality was 16.2%. Hospital mortality increased with higher PIRO scores with odds ratios of 1.070 (95% CI 1.041-1.100) for Moreno-PIRO, 1.282 (95% CI 1.079-1.524) for Rubulotta-PIRO and 1.256 (95% CI 1.146-1.367) for Howell-PIRO. Area under the curves for Moreno-PIRO was 0.743 (95% CI: 0.687-0.793), for Rubulotta-PIRO 0.646 (95% CI: 0.587-0.702) and for Howell-PIRO 0.751 (95% CI: 0.696-0.801). Moreno-PIRO and Howell-PIRO were statistically different compared with Rubulotta-PIRO (P=0.046 and P=0.035).
CONCLUSION: Proposed PIRO classifications demonstrated slight differences between models without prioritization of one approach and all seemed feasible for patient classification. Future PIRO-development is needed to straighten predisposition, infection, and especially the response category.

lingua: Inglese


FULL TEXT  ESTRATTI

inizio pagina