预测脓毒性休克患者预后的相关研究进展
Recent Advances in Research on Prognostic Prediction of Patients with Septic Shock
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2026.161136, PDF,   
作者: 卢雨萱:保定市第一中心医院急诊一科,河北 保定;承德医学院研究生院,河北 承德;张国彦*:保定市第一中心医院急诊一科,河北 保定
关键词: 脓毒性休克预后预测Septic Shock Prognosis Prediction
摘要: 脓毒性休克是脓毒症的严重并发症,其长期居高不下的病死率推动了预后预测模型的持续发展。传统临床评分系统及生物标志物在预后评估中各具优势,但也存在明显局限性;一些新型的生物标志物虽展现出潜在预测价值但多处于临床研究阶段,尚未普及。当前研究趋势已转向复合预测模型与多标志物联合预测模式,以期提高预测的准确性。本文旨在通过对国内外相关研究文献的阅读,分析各类预测方法的优势与不足,不断改进预后预测方法和提高预测准确性,改善脓毒性休克患者预后。
Abstract: Septic shock is a severe complication of sepsis, and its persistently high mortality rate has driven the continuous development of prognostic prediction models. Traditional clinical scoring systems and biomarkers each have their advantages in prognostic assessment but also have obvious limitations; some novel biomarkers have shown potential predictive value but are mostly in the clinical research stage and have not been widely applied. Current research trends have shifted towards composite prediction models and multi-marker prediction patterns to improve prediction accuracy. This article aims to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of various prediction methods by reviewing relevant domestic and international research literature, continuously improve prognostic prediction methods, enhance prediction accuracy, and improve the prognosis of patients with septic shock.
文章引用:卢雨萱, 张国彦. 预测脓毒性休克患者预后的相关研究进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2026, 16(1): 1040-1046. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2026.161136

参考文献

[1] Singer, M., Deutschman, C.S., Seymour, C.W., Shankar-Hari, M., Annane, D., Bauer, M., et al. (2016) The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). Journal of the American Medical Association, 315, 801-810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] 曹钰, 柴艳芬, 邓颖, 等. 中国脓毒症/脓毒性休克急诊治疗指南(2018) [J]. 感染、炎症、修复, 2019, 20(1): 3-22.
[3] Reinhart, K., Daniels, R., Kissoon, N., Machado, F.R., Schachter, R.D. and Finfer, S. (2017) Recognizing Sepsis as a Global Health Priority—A WHO Resolution. New England Journal of Medicine, 377, 414-417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Bauer, M., Gerlach, H., Vogelmann, T., Preissing, F., Stiefel, J. and Adam, D. (2020) Mortality in Sepsis and Septic Shock in Europe, North America and Australia between 2009 and 2019—Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Critical Care, 24, Article No. 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Karakike, E., Kyriazopoulou, E., Tsangaris, I., Routsi, C., Vincent, J. and Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E.J. (2019) The Early Change of SOFA Score as a Prognostic Marker of 28-Day Sepsis Mortality: Analysis through a Derivation and a Validation Cohort. Critical Care, 23, Article No. 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Cirik, M.O., Doganay, G.E., Doganci, M., Ozdemir, T., Yildiz, M., Kahraman, A., et al. (2025) Comparison of Intensive Care Scoring Systems in Predicting Overall Mortality of Sepsis. Diagnostics, 15, Article 1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Wang, J.Y., Wang, H.W., Liu, W.X., et al. (2019) Assessment Values of Procalcitonin, Lactic Acid, and Disease Severity Scores in Patients with Sepsis. Chinese Critical Care Medicine, 31, 938-941.
[8] 徐丽娜, 任思思, 李焱, 等. PI联合CitH3及PCSK9在脓毒性休克患者预后评估中的价值[J]. 广东医学, 2025, 46(2): 256-260.
[9] 高伟康. NLR、ACAG、24h LCR对脓毒性休克患者预后的评估价值[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆医科大学, 2023.
[10] Li, Y.L., Yan, C.J., Gan, Z.Y., et al. (2020) Prognostic Values of SOFA Score, qSOFA Score, and LODS Score for Patients with Sepsis. Annals of Palliative Medicine, 9, 1037-1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Uppal, S., Bhatnagar, M., Meelu, A., et al. (2025) Prognostic Value of Modified Shock Index in Sepsis. Bioinformation, 21, 614-617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Usman, O.A., Usman, A.A. and Ward, M.A. (2019) Comparison of SIRS, qSOFA, and NEWS for the Early Identification of Sepsis in the Emergency Department. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 37, 1490-1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Koozi, H., Lengquist, M. and Frigyesi, A. (2020) C-Reactive Protein as a Prognostic Factor in Intensive Care Admissions for Sepsis: A Swedish Multicenter Study. Journal of Critical Care, 56, 73-79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Shinde, V.V., Jha, A., Natarajan, M.S.S., Vijayakumari, V., Govindaswamy, G., Sivaasubramani, S., et al. (2023) Serum Procalcitonin vs SOFA Score in Predicting Outcome in Sepsis Patients in Medical Intensive Care Unit. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 27, 348-351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] 王强. 血乳酸水平及乳酸清除率对血流感染所致脓毒性休克患者病死的预测价值[J]. 中国民康医学, 2022, 34(19): 131-133.
[16] Kim, S.M., Ryoo, S.M., Shin, T.G., et al. (2024) Early Mortality Stratification with Serum Albumin and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score at Emergency Department Admission in Septic Shock Patients. Life, 14, Article 1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] 祝勇军, 邓小军. 急性脓毒性休克患者血清sCD73和miR-124a表达水平及与28天预后的预测价值研究[J]. 现代检验医学杂志, 2025, 40(1): 94-98.
[18] 衡军锋, 吴丁烨. HBP、NT-proBNP联合SOFA评分预测脓毒症休克预后价值分析[J]. 中国急救复苏与灾害医学杂志, 2021, 16(9): 1020-1023.
[19] 张继松, 王聿明, 郑彦俊, 等. NGAL对脓毒症/脓毒性休克患者预后的预测作用[J]. 中华卫生应急电子杂志, 2020, 6(4): 202-208.
[20] 吴海燕, 王宝玉, 刘畅, 等. 脓毒性休克患者预后不良的多指标联合预测方法研究[J]. 实用临床医药杂志, 2023, 27(20): 86-90+98.