Open Life Sciences (Aug 2023)
Comparison of the prognostic value of four different critical illness scores in patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy
Abstract
In patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC), the Chinese DIC scoring system (CDSS) of the Chinese Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis score, the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine (JAAM) score, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH), and the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress Adverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) score were compared for their predictive significance (SIC). From August 2021 through August 2022, 92 SIC patients hospitalized in our hospital’s Department of Critical Care Medicine served as study participants. Groups of patients were created with a bad prognosis (n = 35) and a favorable prognosis (n = 57) 14 days following admission. Electronic medical records were used to compile patient information such as demographics (gender, age, and body mass index), medical history (hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic kidney disease), treatment (mechanical ventilation, APACHE II score at admission), and outcomes (results). All patients’ JAAM, CDSS, ISTH, and CRUSADE scores were recorded. The APACHE II scores of the group with a poor prognosis were noticeably (p < 0.05) higher upon admission than those of the group with a favorable prognosis. The poor prognosis group had higher JAAM, ISTH, CDSS, and CRUSADE scores than the good prognosis group (all p < 0.05). Partial coagulation indicators in fibrinogen, D-dimer, activated partial thromboplastin time, and prothrombin time were positively linked with JAAM, ISTH, CDSS, and CRUSADE (all p < 0.05). At admission, the JAAM, ISTH, CDSS, CRUSADE, and APACHE II scores were independently linked with SIC patients’ prognosis (all p < 0.05) in a multivariate logistic regression analysis. According to receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve for predicting the prognosis of SIC patients using the JAAM, ISTH, CDSS, and CRUSADE4 scores was 0.896, 0.870, 0.852, and 0.737, respectively, with 95% CI being 0.840–0.952, 0.805–0.936, 0.783–0.922 and 0.629–0.845, respectively (all p < 0.05). The prognosis of SIC patients may be predicted in part by their JAAM, ISTH, CDSS, and CRUSADE4 scores, with the CDSS score being the most accurate. This research provides important recommendations for improving the care of patients with SIC.
Keywords
