Sofa score

Author: h | 2025-04-25

SOFA Score =2 (or change in SOFA Score by 2 or more points) Two point increase is associated with a mortality increase as much as 20%; Mortality (based on maximal SOFA Score) Mortality 10%: SOFA Score 0 to 6; Mortality %: SOFA Score 7 to 9; Mortality %: SOFA Score 10 to 12; Mortality %: SOFA Score 13 to 14; Mortality 80%: SOFA

Comparison of quick Pitt to quick sofa and sofa scores for scoring

Group were 13 (7–17) and 14 (9–16), respectively [22]. In the study by Fernandez and coworkers, the APACHE II scores in the COT group and HFNC group were 21 ± 8.2 and 21 ± 8.8, respectively [23]. In the study by Tiruvoipati and coworkers, the APACHE III scores were reported, and the scores in the protocol A group and protocol B group were 70.55 ± 27.39 and 72.95 ± 23.22, respectively [25]. Three of the included studies reported the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II. In the study by Maggiore and colleagues, the SAPS II scores in the COT group and HFNC group were 44 ± 16 and 43 ± 14, respectively [12]. In the crossover study by Rittayamai and coworkers, the SAPS II score was 30.9 ± 4.4 [13]. In the crossover study by Di mussi and colleagues, the SAPS II score was 39.6 ± 13.2, and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 5.6 ± 2.5 [26]. In the study by Parke and coworkers, the EuroSCORE was reported, and the scores in the COT group and HFNC group were 5.3 ± 2.8 and 5.1 ± 2.8, respectively [17]. In the study by Futier and colleagues, the preoperative risk score was reported; few patients in both groups (15% patients in the COT group and 17% patients in the HFNC group) were at high-risk levels, and the main patients in both groups were at moderate levels [27]. According to the severity scores of populations, we stratified the included studies into a severe subgroup (APACHE II ≥ 15, SAPS II ≥ 38, SOFA ≥ 2) and non-severe subgroup (APACHE II 37, 38]. However, we found no interactions between subgroups with regard to postextubation respiratory failure (Pinteraction = 0.42), reintubation (Pinteraction = 0.36), respiratory rate (Pinteraction = 0.39), and PaO2 (Pinteraction = 0.92), which meant that the severity of patients would not influence the effect of HFNC with regard to postextubation respiratory failure, reintubation, respiratory rate, and PaO2.Although a lower postextubation respiratory failure would be expected to decrease reintubation rate and shorten the length of ICU and hospital stays, no differences. SOFA Score =2 (or change in SOFA Score by 2 or more points) Two point increase is associated with a mortality increase as much as 20%; Mortality (based on maximal SOFA Score) Mortality 10%: SOFA Score 0 to 6; Mortality %: SOFA Score 7 to 9; Mortality %: SOFA Score 10 to 12; Mortality %: SOFA Score 13 to 14; Mortality 80%: SOFA Examination of the following SOFA score derivatives: the mean SOFA (average of daily SOFA scores of any individual during their ICU stay); maximum SOFA (highest SOFA score of any individual during their ICU stay); and delta SOFA (SOFA score after 48 hours of admission–SOFA score at admission), showed significantly higher scores in non-survivors than in survivors (). SOFA scores. The area under the ROC curve was 0.76 for the APACHE II score and ranged from 0.74 for the initial SOFA score to 0.98 for the maximum SOFA score. Hosmer–Lemeshow values for the APACHE II score and various SOFA scores indicated that predictions based on these scores closely fit the observed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: APACHE II and SOFA Regarding the 60-day mortality rates of patients in the 2 groups classified by the optimal cutoff value of the SOFA score (5), patients in the high SOFA score group (SOFA score ≥5) had a significantly greater risk of death than those in the low SOFA score group (SOFA score 5).The SOFA score could be used to evaluate the severity and 60-day The SOFA scores at ED admission (ED-SOFA) and ICU admission (ICU-SOFA) were obtained. Relative changes in SOFA scores were calculated as follows: Δ-SOFA=ICU-SOFA-ED-SOFA. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the Δ-SOFA score: (a) Δ-SOFA=0-1; and (b) Δ-SOFA more than or equal to 2. There was a statistically significant difference between the AUC of SOFA and the mean SOFA score (mean of serially measured SOFA scores) with a P-value of 0.0008, and the AUC of Day 1 APACHE II and mean SOFA score has a P-value of 0.0066 which was also statistically significant and the mean SOFA score had sensitivity 93.65 and specificity 100 Trajectories of SOFA scores and estimated real-time SOFA scores with intervals during two patients’ ICU stay. Conventional Value: SOFA score calculated from the conventional approach without A total of 4860 patients was included, and the in-hospital mortality was 22.1%. In 59.7% of patients, SOFA max increased compared with SOFA ini, and the mean change of total SOFA score was 2.0 (standard deviation, 2.3).There was a significant difference in in-hospital mortality according to total SOFA score and the SOFA component scores, except Figure 1. Flow of Patients Through the ELAIN TrialELAIN indicates Early vs Late Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury; KDIGO, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes; RRT, renal replacement therapy; CKD, chronic kidney disease; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; AKI, acute kidney injury; SOFA, sepsis-related organ failure assessment; NGAL, neutrophil gelatinase–associated lipocalin.Figure 2. Mortality Probability Within 90 Days After Study Enrollment for Patients Receiving Early and Delayed Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT)KDIGO indicates Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes. In the delayed group, 18 patients had an absolute indication for RRT. The median (quartile 1 [Q1], quartile 3 [Q3]) duration of follow-up was 90 days (Q1, Q3: 90, 90) in the early group and 90 days (Q1, Q3: 90, 90) in the delayed group. The vertical ticks indicate censored cases. Table 1. Baseline Characteristics for Critically Ill Patients Receiving Early vs Delayed Initiation of Renal Replacement TherapyEarly(n = 112)Delayed(n = 119)Age, mean (SD), y65.7 (13.5)68.2 (12.7)Sex, No. (%) Men78 (69.6)68 (57.1) Women34 (30.4)51 (42.9)Baseline creatinine, mean (SD), mg/dL1.1 (0.4)1.1 (0.4)Estimated GFR, mean (SD), mL/min/1.73 m256.2 (13.8)55.9 (14.5)SOFA score, mean (SD)15.6 (2.3)16.0 (2.3)APACHE II, mean (SD)30.6. (7.5)32.7 (8.8)Comorbidities, No. (%) Hypertension97 (86.6)92 (77.3) Congestive heart failure49 (43.8)47 (39.5) Diabetes17 (15.2)28 (23.5) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease20 (17.9)21 (17.6) Chronic kidney disease (estimated GFR42 (37.8)52 (44.8) Cardiac arrhythmia37 (33.0)53 (44.5)Source of admission, No./total No. (%) Cardiac Total56/112 (50.0)52/119 (43.7) CABG only11/56 (19.6)16/52 (30.8) Valve only13/56 (23.2)10/52 (19.2) Combination or others32/56 (57.1)26/52 (50.0) Trauma14/112 (12.5)14/119 (11.8) Abdominal Total34/112 (30.4)44/119 (37.0) Bowel resection8/34 (23.5)5/44 (11.4) Esophageal resection5/34 (14.7)2/44 (4.5) Liver transplant3/34 (8.8)7/44 (15.9) Others18/34 (52.9)30/44 (68.2) Others8/112 (7.1)9/119 (7.6) Neurosurgical2/8 (25.0)3/9 (33.3) Pulmonary6/8 (75.0)6/9 (66.7)Cumulative fluid balance until randomization, median (Q1, Q3), mL6811.0 (3897.0, 10 189.0)6334.0 (3951.5, 10 700.5)Mechanically ventilated, No. (%)98 (87.5)105 (88.2)Medication, No. (%) Vasopressors96 (85.7)108 (90.8) Intravenous contrast38 (33.9)35 (29.4) Aminoglycosides0 (0)0 (0) Tacrolimus4 (3.6)8 (6.7) Amphotericin2 (1.8)3 (2.5)SOFA cardiovascular score, No. (%) 0-2 Nonoliguric4 (3.6)6 (5.0) Oliguric11 (9.8)9 (7.6) 3-4 Nonoliguric30 (26.8)32 (26.9) Oliguric67 (59.8)72 (60.5)Baseline renal biomarkerPlasma NGAL, median (Q1, Q3), ng/mL490.0 (350.0, 822.5)618.5 (381.8, 941.0)Table 2. Patient Characteristics at the Time of Renal Replacement