脓毒症之前世今生课件.ppt
《脓毒症之前世今生课件.ppt》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《脓毒症之前世今生课件.ppt(54页珍藏版)》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、脓毒症之前世今生,南通市第三人民医院 重症医学科田李均,危重症专科护士理论培训 2018-07-06,1,脓毒症辞源及演变,2,脓毒症 3.0,3,脓毒症治疗进展,4,脓毒症未来展望,目录 CONTENTS,脓毒症辞源,Sepsis 腐烂,和疾病、死亡有关。,希波克拉底前460年-前370年,脓毒症辞源,Sepsis 1.0 = infection + SIRS,Chest 1992 Jun; 101(6):1644-55,Sepsis 1.0,Sepsis 1.0,非特异性损伤引起的临床反应,满足 2条标准: 体温:T 38C or 90 bpm呼吸: 20 bpm白细胞计数: 12,000
2、/mm3 或 10%,重症脓毒症:脓毒症患者出现器官功能障碍,脓毒症:SIRS及可疑或明确的感染,脓毒性休克:严重感染导致的循环衰竭,表现为经充分液体复苏仍不能纠正的组织低灌注和低血压。,Sepsis 2.0,Intensive Care Med. 2003 Apr;29(4):530-8. Epub 2003 Mar 28.,Sepsis 2.0=感染SIRS会议提出了包括20余条临床症状和体征评估指标构成的诊断标准,即Sepsis 2.0。,Sepsis 2.0,该标准过于复杂,且缺乏充分的研究基础和科学研究证据支持,并未得到临床认可和应用!,方法:通过对2000 年至2013 年澳大利亚
3、和新西兰172 个重症加强治疗病房(ICU)近120 万例患者的数据分析,根据是否满足2条全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)的诊断标准将感染伴器官功能障碍的患者分为SIRS 阳性和SIRS 阴性两组。结果:在近11万例感染伴器官功能障碍的患者中,87.9%为SIRS阳性,12.1%为SIRS 阴性,在14年内两组患者的临床特征和病死率变化相似。校正分析显示,患者病死率随着满足SIRS标准项目的增加呈线性增高。结论:该研究说明现有脓毒症标准有可能遗漏约 1/8 的感染伴器官功能障碍患者,且该标准不能确定病死率增加的临界点,这提示当前脓毒症的筛查标准的特异性不佳。,N Engl J Med, 2015
4、, 372 (17): 1629-1638.,脓毒症诊断标准的“争议”,Do we need a new definition of sepsis?,the definition of septic shock currently revolves around variable blood pressure and/or lactate levels, with loosely termed or undefined adequacy of fluid resuscitation and persistent hypotension. Defining sepsis must, howeve
5、r, be an ongoing iterative process requiring minor or major revisions as new findings come to light. In much the same way that software enhancements move from version 1.0 to 1.1 or to 2.0 depending on the magnitude of change, so a new sepsis 3.0 definition must be refined into versions 3.1, 3.2, and
6、 so on until an eventual complete overhaul generates the development of sepsis 4.0.,Intensive Care Med, 2015, 41 (5): 909-911.,脓毒症的诊断标准于1991年发布(脓毒症1.0),但过于敏感,可能导致脓毒症的过度诊断和治疗;2001年更新版(脓毒症2.0)又过于复杂,未被广泛应用。,Sepsis 3.0“应运而生”,JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10,1,脓毒症辞源及演变,2,脓毒症 3.0,3,脓毒症治疗进展,4,脓毒症未来展望,目录 CON
7、TENTS,Sepsis 3.0定义,JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10,感染引起的宿主异常反应所导致的危及生命的多器官功能障碍。,Sepsis 3.0InfectionSOFA2,Sepsis 3.0诊断标准,JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10,Septic shock 定义及诊断标准,JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10,Septic shock=Sepsis+输液无反应低血压+使用缩血管药物维持MAP65mmHg)+乳酸则2mmol/L。,Septic shock is a subset of sepsis
8、 in which underlying circulatory and cellular/metabolic abnormalities are profound enough to substantially increase mortality.,脓毒症筛查,脓毒症3.0诊断流程,JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10,Problem #1: Sepsis-III remains subjective,Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(一),所有定义都包含了“suspected infection”,但怎么去界定“suspected infection”却很难。,
9、Problem #2: qSOFA & SOFA are mortality predictors, not tests for sepsis,Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(二),qSOFA & SOFA 评分多用于死亡预测,而非用于检测sepsis。,Problem #3: Sepsis-III is less specific for infection than Sepsis-II,Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(三),Sepsis 3.0 对诊断感染特异性低于Sepsis 2.0 。,Problem #4: qSOFA has similar performance compar
10、ed to SIRS for mortality prediction,Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(四),事实上,qSOFA与SIRS对死亡预测价值相当 。,Problem #5: qSOFA may be less specific in diseases that directly cause hypotension, tachypnea, or delirium,Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(五),Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(六),Problem #6: qSOFA is inconsistent with a validated prognostic model (CU
11、RB65),CURB65模型被认为肺炎诊断经典模型。qSOFA与之比较,会高估肺炎的死亡率。,Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(七),Problem #7: Combining qSOFA and SOFA scores is not evidence-based among patients outside the ICU,SOFA 比qSOFA特异性更低,似乎不符合逻辑。,Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(八),Problem #8: The combined performance of qSOFA + SOFA for mortality is not reported.,Sepsis
12、 3.0的10个疑问(九),Problem #9: The overall sensitivity of Sepsis-III for sepsis might be 50% outside of the ICU,Sepsis 3.0的10个疑问(十),Problem #10: Sepsis-III is not a consensus guideline in the United States,支持团体:Society of Critical Care Medicinethe American Thoracic Societythe American Association of Crit
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 脓毒症 前世 今生 课件
![提示](https://www.31ppt.com/images/bang_tan.gif)
链接地址:https://www.31ppt.com/p-1484378.html