4.6 Article

ORGAN DYSFUNCTION AS ESTIMATED BY THE SEQUENTIAL ORGAN FAILURE ASSESSMENT SCORE IS RELATED TO OUTCOME IN CRITICALLY ILL BURN PATIENTS

期刊

SHOCK
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 125-131

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e31817fc3ef

关键词

Organ dysfunction; burns; outcome; inhalation injury

资金

  1. FIS [06/1664]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objectives of the study were to assess organ dysfunction in burn patients by using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, to determine the relationship between early (day 1) and late (day 4) organ dysfunction, as well as the change in organ dysfunction from admission to day 4, and mortality. The design was a prospective observational cohort study. Patients were admitted to our intensive care burn unit with severe thermal burns (>= 20% total body surface area [BSA] burned) or inhalation injury with a delay from injury to admission less than 12 h and a length of stay less than 3 days (n = 439; age, 46.0 +/- 20.3 yrs; total BSA burned, 31.6% +/- 20.2% (mean +/- SD]; inhalation injury, 44.4%; crude mortality, 18.5%). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were measured on admission (SOFA 0) and on subsequent days (SOFA 1, SOFA 2, SOFA 3, and SOFA 4). The difference between SOFA 0 and SOFA 4 (Delta SOFA 0-4) was calculated. Multivariate logistic regression analyses, including other variables associated with mortality in the models, were performed to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of organ dysfunction measurements for mortality. After adjusting for age, BSA burned, diagnosis of inhalation injury, and sex, SOFA 1 (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval [Cl], 1.55-2.32), SOFA 4 (OR, 1.33; 95% Cl, 1.19-1.47), and Delta SOFA 0-4 (OR, 1.40; 95% Cl, 1.28-1.55) were independently associated with mortality. The SOFA score is useful to assess organ dysfunction in burn patients. Burn-induced organ dysfunction (early and late), as well as the change in organ dysfunction, is independently associated with mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据