{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07062249726974881, 'fraction_numerical': 0.07826720058245358, 'mean_word_length': 4.346303501945525, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparison of the predictive value of the Oxford acute severity of illness score and simplified acute physiology score II for in-hospital mortality in intensive care unit patients with sepsis: an analysis based on MIMIC-IV database].

OBJECTIVE
To compare the predictive value of Oxford acute severity of illness score (OASIS) and simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) for in-hospital mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis.


METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the data in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV 0.4 (MIMIC-IV 0.4). Based on Sepsis-3 diagnostic criteria, the basic information of ICU adult sepsis patients with infection and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2 within 24 hours of ICU admission admitted for the first time in the database was extracted, including gender, age, vasopressor drugs, sedative drugs, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, length of ICU stay, OASIS, SAPS II scores, etc. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC curve) was drawn, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated to compare the prognostic value of OASIS score and SAPS II score.


RESULTS
A total of 11 098 adult ICU sepsis patients were enrolled in the final analysis, of which 2 320 died and 8 778 survived in hospital, with a mortality of 20.90%. Compared with the survivors, the non-survivors were older [years old: 71 (60, 81) vs. 67 (56, 78)], had longer length of ICU stay [days: 6.95 (3.39, 13.07) vs. 4.23 (2.19, 9.73)] and higher proportions of using vasopressor drugs, sedative drugs, mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy [vasopressor drugs: 50.65% (1 175/2 320) vs. 33.05% (2 901/8 778), sedative drugs: 58.53% (1 358/2 320) vs. 48.41% (4 249/8 778), mechanical ventilation: 89.57% (2 078/2 320) vs. 81.66% (7 168/8 778), renal replacement therapy: 11.98% (278/2 320) vs. 6.57% (577/8 778), all P < 0.01]. Moreover, the non-survivors had higher OASIS score [43 (36, 49) vs. 35 (29, 41), P < 0.01] and SAPS II score [49 (40, 60) vs. 38 (31, 47), P < 0.01] as compared with the survivors. ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC of OASIS score and SAPS II score for predicting in-hospital death of ICU patients with sepsis was 0.713 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 0.701-0.725] and 0.716 (95%CI was 0.704-0.728), respectively, and the Delong test showed no significant difference in AUC between the two scoring systems (P > 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
OASIS score has a good predictive value for in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients, which is similar to SAPS II score. OASIS score is simpler and has a broader clinical application prospect than SAPS II score.