摘要
目的观察APACHEⅡ、APACHEⅢS、APSⅡ和MODS评分对重症脓毒症病人动态评分评估预后的适用性和可行性。方法回顾性分析56例符合重症脓毒症标准者病人,分成两组:生存组(A组)和死亡组(B组),分别在第1天、第3天和第7天记录病人一般情况、APACHEⅡ、APACHEⅢS、APSⅡ和MODS的各项评分项目并计算得出结果。结果按P<0.01水平,生存组和死亡组使用四种评分系统7 d内进行动态评分,MODS评分得分仅在第1天差异有显著性意义,而APACHEⅡ评分、APACHEⅢ评分和SAPSⅡ评分得分差异均有显著性意义。7 d内四种评分系统比较,APACHEⅢ评分P值始终最小,MODS评分最大。结论评分系统并不是越新就越好,不同疾病评分系统的选择应该有所不同。SICU中重症脓毒症病人7 d内运用四种评分系统动态评分来评估病情和预后,APACHEⅢ评分系统最优,APACHEⅡ评分系统和SAPSⅡ评分系统次之,MODS评分系统最差。
Objective To study four severity scoring systems, APACHE Ⅱ,APACHE HI ,SAPS Ⅱ and MODS in the patients with severe sepsis. Methods Fifty- six patients satisfied the severe sepsis standard and were divided into two groups. One was survival group （A group） and the other was dead group （B group）. Besides recording general data ,the continuous surveillance of APACHE Ⅱ,APACHE Ⅲ,SAPS Ⅱ and MODS were followed on the 1st,3rd and 7th day. Results By the level of P 〈 0.01, four scoring systems were applied in seven days, MODS was significantly different only on the 1st day, but the others were significantly different on the 1st, 3rd and 7th day. The P value of APACHE Ⅲ was always minimum and that of MODS was maximum. Conc;isopms The newest scoring systems do not mean the best, and the choice of the scoring system should change with different diseases. Four scoring systems were applied for evaluating the symptoms and prognosis of the patients with severe sepsis in SICU with seven days, the APACHE Ⅲ is the best, APACHE Ⅱ and SAPS Ⅱare secondary and MODS is worst.
出处
《中国急救医学》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2005年第11期802-803,共2页
Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine
关键词
重症脓毒症
急性生理和慢性健康评分Ⅱ和Ⅲ
简化急性生理学评分Ⅱ
多器官功能衰竭评分
Severe sepsis
Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ and Ⅲ （APACHEⅡ and Ⅲ ）
Simplified acute physiology score（SAPS Ⅱ）
Multiple organ dysfunction score （MODS）
