The clinical value of different shock scoring systems on the prognosis of neonatal refractory septic shock
10.3760/cma.j.issn.2096-2932.2021.06.006
- VernacularTitle:不同休克评分方法对新生儿难治性脓毒性休克预后的评估价值
- Author:
Junjuan ZHONG
1
;
Chun SHUAI
;
Yue WANG
;
Jing MO
;
Jing ZHANG
;
Dongju MA
;
Yingyi LIN
;
Xiuzhen YE
Author Information
1. 广东省妇幼保健院新生儿科，广州 510000
- Keywords:
Septic shock;
Shock Score;
Infant,newborn;
Prognosis
- From:Chinese Journal of Neonatology
2021;36(6):28-32
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To study the clinical value of neonatal shock score (NSS) and septic shock score (SSS) in the evaluation of mortality and serious complications of neonatal refractory septic shock.Method:From January 2019 to November 2020, clinical data of neonates with septic shock admitted to Neonatal Department of our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. According to the final outcomes, neonates were assigned into good prognosis group (neonates survived without serious complications) and poor prognosis group (neonates were dead within 28 days after birth and/or had serious complications). The NSS and SSS were calculated according to the worst value of each index during the septic shock course. SSS included computed septic shock score (cSSS) and bedside septic shock score (bSSS). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the efficacy of each scoring system evaluating the risk of poor prognosis due to septic shock. The correlation of each scoring system with the duration of vasoactive drugs was analyzed using Spearman rank correlation analysis.Result:A total of 72 neonates were enrolled, including 45 in good prognosis group and 27 in poor prognosis group. The vasoactive drug score, serum lactate level, NSS and cSSS in poor prognosis group were significantly higher than good prognosis group ( P<0.05).And bSSS score showed no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of NSS and cSSS predicting the adverse prognosis of neonates with septic shock were 0.644 (95% CI 0.510~0.777, P<0.05) and 0.765 (95% CI 0.654~0.877, P<0.05). The best cut-off values for NSS and cSSS predicting poor prognosis were 4.0 and 80.5, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) (81.3% vs. 47.5%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (75.0% vs. 70.6%) of cSSS were higher than NSS. Spearman rank correlation analysis showed that cSSS was positively correlated with the duration of vasoactive drugs( r=0.487, P<0.01). Conclusion:Both shock scoring systems have an evaluation value for the prognosis of neonatal septic shock. The evaluation value of cSSS is better than NSS, and can be used as a main tool for the evaluation of neonatal refractory septic shock.
