Evidence Hub

Association between the stress hyperglycemia ratio and 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis: a retrospective cohort study and predictive model establishment based on machine learning

Fengjuan Yan, Xie-Hui Chen, Xiao-Qing Quan, Lili Wang, Xinyi Wei, Jialiang Zhu

Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2024

2,312 participants · 212 citations

Abstract

Sepsis is a severe form of systemic inflammatory response syndrome that is caused by infection. Sepsis is characterized by a marked state of stress, which manifests as nonspecific physiological and metabolic changes in response to the disease. Previous studies have indicated that the stress hyperglycemia ratio (SHR) can serve as a reliable predictor of adverse outcomes in various cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. However, there is limited research on the relationship between the SHR and adverse outcomes in patients with infectious diseases, particularly in critically ill patients with sepsis. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the association between the SHR and adverse outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis. Clinical data from 2312 critically ill patients with sepsis were extracted from the MIMIC-IV (2.2) database. Based on the quartiles of the SHR, the study population was divided into four groups. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The relationship between the SHR and adverse outcomes was explored using restricted cubic splines, Cox proportional hazard regression, and Kaplan‒Meier curves. The predictive ability of the SHR was assessed using the Boruta algorithm, and a prediction model was established using machine learning algorithms. Data from 2312 patients who were diagnosed with sepsis were analyzed. Restricted cubic splines demonstrated a "U-shaped" association between the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,312 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free