Volume 5 Supplement 1

21st International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Open Access

Is there any difference between SOFA and LODS scores to discriminate outcome in septic patients?

  • E Silva1,
  • S Blecher1,
  • AG Garrido1,
  • MH Kai1,
  • MC Assunção1,
  • PS Martins1,
  • F Cardoso1 and
  • E Knobel1
Critical Care20015(Suppl 1):P228

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc1295

Received: 15 January 2001

Published: 2 March 2001

Introduction

Organ failure scores were designed to describe organ dysfunction more than to predict outcome. The main difference between these systems is how they evaluate cardiovascular dysfunction, which is the main cause of mortality in septic patients.

Objectives

a) to compare the effectiveness of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and of Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS) score to discriminate outcome in septic patients; b) to determine the best cut-off value for both scores.

Design

Prospective, observational study.

Setting

Two large general ICUs.

Patients

Forty-seven adult septic patients.

Method

We measured SOFA and LODS scores at ICU admission and daily. Survivors and non-survivors median scores for both descriptors were compared using Mann–Whitney U-test; the relative risk (RR) was also calculated.

Results

The mean age was 51 ± 18 years and mean APACHE II was 19.8 ± 6. The best cut-off value for SOFA and LODS score were 11 and 6, respectively. The overall mortality rate was 48.9%.

Conclusion

Both SOFA and LODS score discriminated adequately survivors and non-survivors septic patients.
Table 1

Time course of median (with interquartile range) of SOFA and LODS score in survivors and non-survivors septic patients

  

Survivors

Non-survivors

P

SOFA

Day 0

8 (7–11)

11 (8.5–12)

< 0.05

 

Day 1

9 (7–10)

13 (9–13)

< 0.01

 

Day 2

8 (6.5–9)

12 (10–14.5)

< 0.001

 

Day 3

8 (6–10)

12 (11–14)

< 0.001

 

Day 10

3 (3–8)

11 (8–11)

< 0.01

LODS

Day 0

6 (4.5–7)

8 (5–9)

< 0.05

 

Day 1

4 (2.5–7)

7 (6–9)

< 0.01

 

Day 2

4 (2–7)

6 (3–9)

< 0.01

 

Day 3

4 (2–6)

7 (6–8)

< 0.01

 

Day 10

2 (1–6)

7 (6–8)

< 0.01

Table 2

Risk relative of death of each variable on day 0, 1, 2 and 3

 

D 0

D 1

D 2

D 3

 

SOFA

1.75

2.79

3.20

4.74

RR

≥ 11

0.98–3.16

1.41–5.51

1.61–6.38

1.89–11.85

IC

LODS

1.46

3.17

2.67

3.17

RR

≥ 6

0.72–2.97

1.27–7.87

1.17–6.12

1.26–7.96

IC

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
ICU, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein and Santa Marcelina Hospital

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2001

Advertisement