Association between Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio and Prognosis in Patients Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the usefulness of fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio (FAR) as a prognostic marker in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) compared with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, a widely used prognostic scoring system. An inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to control for selection bias and confounding factors. After IPW adjustment, the high FAR group showed significantly higher risk of 1-year compared with low FAR group (36.4% vs. 12.4%, adjust hazard ratio = 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.59–1.86; p < 0.001). In the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis associated with the prediction of 1-year mortality, there was no significant difference between the area under the curve of FAR on ICU admission (C-statistic: 0.684, 95% CI: 0.673–0.694) and that of SOFA score on ICU admission (C-statistic: 0.679, 95% CI: 0.669–0.688) (p = 0.532). In this study, FAR and SOFA score at ICU admission were associated with 1-year mortality in patients admitted to an ICU. Especially, FAR was easier to obtain in critically ill patients than SOFA score. Therefore, FAR is feasible and might help predict long-term mortality in these patients.

Evaluating the Prognostic Efficacy of Scoring Systems in Neurocritical and Neurosurgical Care: An Insight into APACHE II, SOFA, and GCS

“…These scoring systems provide healthcare providers with a structured, evidence-based framework to assess the severity of illness, enabling timely and appropriate medical interventions 13) . By offering a quantitative measure of disease severity, these scores help in stratifying patients based on risk, thereby aiding in the allocation of vital resources and guiding clinical decision-making 14,15) . Additionally, they facilitate more transparent and data-driven discussions with family members about the potential prognosis and assist in cost-benefit analyses 14,15) .…”

“…By offering a quantitative measure of disease severity, these scores help in stratifying patients based on risk, thereby aiding in the allocation of vital resources and guiding clinical decision-making 14,15) . Additionally, they facilitate more transparent and data-driven discussions with family members about the potential prognosis and assist in cost-benefit analyses 14,15) . Importantly, they can also serve as valuable research tools, providing a standardized measure of patient severity that allows for meaningful comparisons across studies and settings.…”