These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the predictive value of scoring systems on the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with suspected infection.
    Author: Lan P, Wang SJ, Shi QC, Fu Y, Xu QY, Chen T, Yu YX, Pan KH, Lin L, Zhou JC, Yu YS.
    Journal: Medicine (Baltimore); 2018 Jul; 97(28):e11421. PubMed ID: 29995791.
    Abstract:
    Cirrhotic patients with infection are prone to develop sepsis or even septic shock rendering poorer prognosis. However, few methods are available to predict the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with infection although there are some scoring systems can be used to predict general patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we aimed to explore the predictive value of scoring systems in determining the outcome of critically ill cirrhotic patients with suspected infection.This was a retrospective cohort study based on a single-center database. The prognostic accuracy of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), chronic liver failure (CLIF)-SOFA, quick CLIF-SOFA (qCLIF-SOFA), CLIF-consortium organ failure (CLIF-C OF), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II were compared by using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and net benefit with decision curve analysis. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality while the secondary endpoints were duration of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay and ICU mortality.A total of 1438 cirrhotic patients with suspected infection were included in the study. Nearly half the patients (50.2%) were admitted to the ICU due to hepatic encephalopathy and the overall in-hospital mortality was 32.0%. Hospital and ICU mortality increased as the score of each scoring system increased (P < .05 for all trends). The AUROC of CLIF-SOFA (AUROC, 0.742; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.714-0.770), CLIF-C OF (AUROC, 0.741; 95% CI, 0.713-0.769), and SAPS II (AUROC, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.733-0.786) were significantly higher than SIRS criteria (AUROC, 0.618; 95% CI, 0.590-0.647), qSOFA (AUROC, 0.612; 95% CI, 0.584-0.640), MELD (AUROC, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.601-0.662), or qCLIF-SOFA (AUROC, 0.680; 95% CI, 0.650-0.710) (P < .05 for all). In the decision curve analysis, the net benefit of implementing CLIF-SOFA and CLIF-C OF to predict the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with suspected infection were higher compared with SIRS, qSOFA, MELD, or qCLIF-SOFA.CLIF-SOFA and CLIF-C OF scores, as well as SAPS II were better tools than SIRS, qSOFA, MELD, or qCLIF-SOFA to evaluate the prognosis of critically ill cirrhotic patients with suspected infection.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]