Yazar "Akgun, F. S." seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 4 / 4
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Predictors of mortality in septic shock: findings for 57 patients diagnosed on admission to emergency or within 24 hours of admission to intensive care
    (Sage Publications Ltd, 2012) Yucel, N.; Togal, T.; Gedik, E.; Ertan, C.; Kayabas, U.; Akgun, F. S.; Bayindir, Y.
    Objective: To identify the risk factors that influence outcome for patients who are diagnosed with septic shock in the emergency department at presentation or within 24 hours after admission to intensive care unit. Methods: A retrospective study of 57 adult patients with septic shock was conducted between March 1, 2006 and August 31, 2009. Results: The patients were 23 males and 34 females with a median age of 67 years (20 to 92 years). Thirty-three (58%) of 57 patients died in hospital and 24 (42%) survived. Multivariate analysis identified low blood pH (OR <0.001; 95% CI <0.001-0.53) and low bicarbonate level (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70-0.95) at emergency department or intensive care unit admission as useful predictors of 3-day in-hospital mortality. Low blood pH (OR <0.001; 95% CI <0.001-0.05), low bicarbonate level (OR 0.75; 95% CIs 0.61-0.91), long duration of symptoms (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.04-2.13), high MEDS score (OR 1.56; 95% CIs 1.06-2.30), and high SOFA score (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.12-2.20) were risk factors for 14-day in-hospital mortality. Renal failure (OR 7.58; 95% CI 1.28-44.77), lower pulmonary tract infection (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.10-11.58), high MEDS score (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.05-1.93) and high APACHE II score (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.13-1.60) were risk factors for 28-day in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: Several factors signaling poor short-term outcome for this patient group are low blood pH, low serum bicarbonate level, longer duration of symptoms lower respiratory tract infection and renal failure. MEDS and SOFA scores might be helpful in the ED to stratify patients with septic shock according to mortality risk. (Hong Kong j. emerg.med. 2012;19:375-386)
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    The prognastic efficiencies of modified early warning score and mainz emergency evaluation score for emergency department patients
    (Nıgerıan journal of clınıcal practıce, 2018) Akgun, F. S.; Ertan, C.; Yucel, N.
    Background: Recently, there is an increasing interest for scoring systems to evaluate the critically ill patients by means of the severeness of their disease and their availibility for discharge in the emergency departments and intensive care units. Our aim in this study is to evaluate the efficiency of the mEWS and MEES scoring systems in assessing the severeness of the disease and predicting the mid term prognosis of the patients hospitalized following their emergency care in our emergency room. Material and Method: Patients, who attended to Inonu University Department of Emergency Medicine and hospitalized following their emergency care were included to our study. The effects of age, sex, triage categories, mEWS and MEES scores on the site of hospitalization and mortality was evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS for Windows version 16.0. The data was summarized as means, standart deviation and percents. Univariate and multiavriate analyses were performed for risk factor calculations. Results: The mean age of the patients was 5819 and 584 (56%) were male. Triage group 1 patients accounted for 21 of all (2%), while 646 (61%) were in group 2 and 384 (37%) were in triage group 3. Of all patients, 341 (32%) were hospitalized to ICU. While discharged patients accounted for 89% (935 patients) of the study group, 116 patients (11%) died at the hospital. The GCS, AVPU and mEWS values were statistically significant by means of patient mortality (P < 0.0001), but the delta MEES value was not (P < 0.127). Conclusion: The results of our stuy suggests that mEWS evaluation is an effective and reliable tool for predicting outcome and hospitalization areas of ED patients. Our results also displayed that the easily available GCS and AVPU scales are reliable guides in patient management. MEES values, on the other hand, are not convenient for ED use.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    The prognastic efficiencies of modified early warning score and mainz emergency evaluation score for emergency department patients
    (Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2018) Akgun, F. S.; Ertan, C.; Yucel, N.
    Background: Recently, there is an increasing interest for scoring systems to evaluate the critically ill patients by means of the severeness of their disease and their availibility for discharge in the emergency departments and intensive care units. Our aim in this study is to evaluate the efficiency of the mEWS and MEES scoring systems in assessing the severeness of the disease and predicting the mid term prognosis of the patients hospitalized following their emergency care in our emergency room. Material and Method: Patients, who attended to Inonu University Department of Emergency Medicine and hospitalized following their emergency care were included to our study. The effects of age, sex, triage categories, mEWS and MEES scores on the site of hospitalization and mortality was evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS for Windows version 16.0. The data was summarized as means, standart deviation and percents. Univariate and multiavriate analyses were performed for risk factor calculations. Results: The mean age of the patients was 5819 and 584 (56%) were male. Triage group 1 patients accounted for 21 of all (2%), while 646 (61%) were in group 2 and 384 (37%) were in triage group 3. Of all patients, 341 (32%) were hospitalized to ICU. While discharged patients accounted for 89% (935 patients) of the study group, 116 patients (11%) died at the hospital. The GCS, AVPU and mEWS values were statistically significant by means of patient mortality (P < 0.0001), but the delta MEES value was not (P < 0.127). Conclusion: The results of our stuy suggests that mEWS evaluation is an effective and reliable tool for predicting outcome and hospitalization areas of ED patients. Our results also displayed that the easily available GCS and AVPU scales are reliable guides in patient management. MEES values, on the other hand, are not convenient for ED use.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    The prognastic efficiencies of modified early warning score and mainzemergency evaluation score for emergency department patients
    (Wolters kluwer medknow publıcatıons, wolters kluwer ındıa pvt ltd , a-202, 2nd flr, qube, c t s no 1498a-2 vıllage marol, andherı east, mumbaı, 400059, ındıa, 2018) Akgun, F. S.; Ertan, C.; Yucel, N.
    Background: Recently, there is an increasing interest for scoring systems to evaluate the critically ill patients by means of the severeness of their disease and their availibility for discharge in the emergency departments and intensive care units. Our aim in this study is to evaluate the efficiency of the mEWS and MEES scoring systems in assessing the severeness of the disease and predicting the mid term prognosis of the patients hospitalized following their emergency care in our emergency room. Material and Method: Patients, who attended to Inonu University Department of Emergency Medicine and hospitalized following their emergency care were included to our study. The effects of age, sex, triage categories, mEWS and MEES scores on the site of hospitalization and mortality was evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS for Windows version 16.0. The data was summarized as means, standart deviation and percents. Univariate and multiavriate analyses were performed for risk factor calculations. Results: The mean age of the patients was 5819 and 584 (56%) were male. Triage group 1 patients accounted for 21 of all (2%), while 646 (61%) were in group 2 and 384 (37%) were in triage group 3. Of all patients, 341 (32%) were hospitalized to ICU. While discharged patients accounted for 89% (935 patients) of the study group, 116 patients (11%) died at the hospital. The GCS, AVPU and mEWS values were statistically significant by means of patient mortality (P < 0.0001), but the delta MEES value was not (P < 0.127). Conclusion: The results of our stuy suggests that mEWS evaluation is an effective and reliable tool for predicting outcome and hospitalization areas of ED patients. Our results also displayed that the easily available GCS and AVPU scales are reliable guides in patient management. MEES values, on the other hand, are not convenient for ED use.