Performances of disseminated intravascular coagulation scoring systems in septic shock patients.
Coagulopathy
DIC
Disseminated intravascular coagulation
Sepsis
Septic shock
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jul 2020
10 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
31
01
2020
accepted:
26
06
2020
entrez:
12
7
2020
pubmed:
12
7
2020
medline:
12
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is no gold standard to diagnose septic shock-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). The objective of our multicenter prospective study was to assess the performances of the different major scoring systems in terms of mortality prediction and DIC diagnosis. The JAAM-DIC 2016 score, the ISTH overt-DIC 2001 score, the associations of sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) score with JAAM-DIC 2016 or ISTH overt-DIC scores were tested in patients within 12 h of their admission in ICU for septic shock (day 1) and at day 2. 582 patients were enrolled in the study. 182/567 (32.1%) were diagnosed with DIC according to ISTH overt-DIC score, and 193/561 (34.4%) according to JAAM-DIC score; 486/577 patients (84.2%) were diagnosed with a coagulopathy according to SIC score. A moderate concordance was observed between ISTH overt-DIC and JAAM-DIC [κ = 0.67 (0.60, 0.73), p < 0.001]. The delay of positivity of the scores for early DIC patients was not different between JAAM-DIC and ISTH overt-DIC scores. Although it was positive earlier, SIC score had worse diagnosis specificity, as 84.2% of the patients with septic shock were diagnosed with "coagulopathy". The specificity of SIC score alone to predict mortality was very low [0.18 (0.15; 0.22)], compared to the ones of JAAM-DIC score [0.71 (0.67; 0.75)], and of ISTH overt-DIC score [0.76 (0.72; 0.80)], p < 0.001. The sensitivity of SIC score to predict mortality was 0.95 [0.89; 0.98], and the ones of JAAM-DIC score and ISTH overt-DIC score were 0.61 [0.50; 0.70] and 0.68 [0.58; 0.77], respectively. There was no benefit in sensitivity and specificity in combining SIC score to JAAM-DIC score or to ISTH overt-DIC score, compared to JAAM-DIC score or ISTH overt-DIC score alone. Our data suggest that the added value of SIC score alone or combined with other scores is limited, and that both JAAM-DIC score and ISTH overt-DIC score can be used in septic shock patients. Trial registration clinicaltrial; Trial registration number: NCT02391792; Date of registration: 18/03/2015; URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02391792?term=meziani&draw=4&rank=1.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is no gold standard to diagnose septic shock-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). The objective of our multicenter prospective study was to assess the performances of the different major scoring systems in terms of mortality prediction and DIC diagnosis. The JAAM-DIC 2016 score, the ISTH overt-DIC 2001 score, the associations of sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) score with JAAM-DIC 2016 or ISTH overt-DIC scores were tested in patients within 12 h of their admission in ICU for septic shock (day 1) and at day 2.
RESULTS
RESULTS
582 patients were enrolled in the study. 182/567 (32.1%) were diagnosed with DIC according to ISTH overt-DIC score, and 193/561 (34.4%) according to JAAM-DIC score; 486/577 patients (84.2%) were diagnosed with a coagulopathy according to SIC score. A moderate concordance was observed between ISTH overt-DIC and JAAM-DIC [κ = 0.67 (0.60, 0.73), p < 0.001]. The delay of positivity of the scores for early DIC patients was not different between JAAM-DIC and ISTH overt-DIC scores. Although it was positive earlier, SIC score had worse diagnosis specificity, as 84.2% of the patients with septic shock were diagnosed with "coagulopathy". The specificity of SIC score alone to predict mortality was very low [0.18 (0.15; 0.22)], compared to the ones of JAAM-DIC score [0.71 (0.67; 0.75)], and of ISTH overt-DIC score [0.76 (0.72; 0.80)], p < 0.001. The sensitivity of SIC score to predict mortality was 0.95 [0.89; 0.98], and the ones of JAAM-DIC score and ISTH overt-DIC score were 0.61 [0.50; 0.70] and 0.68 [0.58; 0.77], respectively. There was no benefit in sensitivity and specificity in combining SIC score to JAAM-DIC score or to ISTH overt-DIC score, compared to JAAM-DIC score or ISTH overt-DIC score alone.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggest that the added value of SIC score alone or combined with other scores is limited, and that both JAAM-DIC score and ISTH overt-DIC score can be used in septic shock patients. Trial registration clinicaltrial; Trial registration number: NCT02391792; Date of registration: 18/03/2015; URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02391792?term=meziani&draw=4&rank=1.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32651674
doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00704-5
pii: 10.1186/s13613-020-00704-5
pmc: PMC7352012
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02391792']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
92Références
J Thromb Haemost. 2019 Aug;17(8):1265-1268
pubmed: 31099127
Crit Care Med. 2006 Mar;34(3):625-31
pubmed: 16521260
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 27;7(9):e017046
pubmed: 28963294
Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):272-9
pubmed: 16895044
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):452-454
pubmed: 28194512
Thromb Haemost. 2001 Nov;86(5):1327-30
pubmed: 11816725
Crit Care Med. 2016 Oct;44(10):e930-9
pubmed: 27322364
J Intensive Care Med. 2020 Jul;35(7):643-649
pubmed: 29720054
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Oct;39(10):1695-703
pubmed: 23793890
J Thromb Haemost. 2019 Nov;17(11):1989-1994
pubmed: 31410983
J Clin Med. 2019 May 22;8(5):
pubmed: 31121897
Thromb Res. 2009 Dec;124(6):651-2
pubmed: 19931677
Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2018 Sep;29(6):551-558
pubmed: 30015646
Acute Med Surg. 2019 Apr 01;6(3):223-232
pubmed: 31304023
Thromb Res. 2009 Nov;124(5):608-13
pubmed: 19660788
Acute Med Surg. 2018 Feb 05;5(1):3-89
pubmed: 29445505
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019 Jan-Dec;25:1076029618824044
pubmed: 30808223
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):869-880
pubmed: 31162936
Crit Care Med. 1992 Jun;20(6):864-74
pubmed: 1597042
Crit Care Med. 2016 Nov;44(11):e1132-e1136
pubmed: 27441905
Crit Care. 2016 Sep 14;20:287
pubmed: 27629997