Background: The scoring systems are helpful to monitor the PICU performance. One of the most important scoring systems is PRISM-III scoring system. Today PRISM score is used to evaluate the quality and quantity of the performance. The goal of this study was to show the prognosis of the patients admitted to Mofid pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) according to PRISM-III and PIM scoring systems.Materials and Methods: This study was a prospective descriptive one. Sampling method was sequentional and the sample size was 121 patients whom admitted to Mofid Hospital's PICU between Dec 2005 till May 2006. Results of PRISM-III scoring system were recorded in prepared sheets. Then, information transferred to computer for SPSS analysis. We used several statistical tests such as Chi square, t-test, Correlation and Regression, ANOVA, and Post-Hoc test.Results: Our study showed that 54% of patients were male and 46% were female and the most causes of admission to PICU were respiratory distress and central nervous system diseases, respectively. Sepsis was the main cause of death in PICU. The Mortality rate was 33%. The mean PRISM-III score was 7.57 and this score had 80% of sensitivity and 75% of specificity to predict the Mortality.Conclusion: According to ROC analysis the PRISM-III score has good predictive value in assessing the probability of Mortality in Mofid's PICU and increase in PRISM-III score corresponds to the higher incidence of Mortality.

Background & Aims: Different scoring systems are used in order to assess the functional quality of intensive care units (ICU) and to predict the required costs and facilities of intensive cares. Variety of scoring systems has been explained that each has advantages and disadvantages. In this study Simplified Acute Physiology Score-III (SAPS-III) and Mortality Probability Model-III (MPM-III) were compared. Materials & Methods: The current cross-sectional study was conducted on 240 non-traumatic patients admitted at ICU of Al-Zahra Hospital in 2016-17. Patients' information including demographics, mean of systolic, diastolic and arterial pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, temperature, Glasgow Coma Scale(GCS), WBC, hematocrit, bilirubin, creatinine, arterial blood gas, and the presence of underlying diseases was gathered from the records for measurement of MPM-III and SAPS-III scores and then they were compared. Results: This study was conducted on 240 non-traumatic patients. Discrimination of MPM-III in cutoff point of 0. 17 was 0. 83(P<0. 001; 95%CI: 0. 765-0. 898), sensitivity and specificity of this test in prediction of non-traumatic Mortality was 82% and 73%, respectively. Discrimination of SAPS-III in cut-off of 48. 5 was 0. 78(P<0. 001; 95%CI: 0. 72-0. 84), while its sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 70%, respectively. Duration of ICU hospitalization (P=0. 028 and 0. 002) and duration of intubation (P=0. 001 and <0. 001) had direct association with Mortality based on both scoring systems while total duration of hospitalization was only significant in SAPSIII (P=0. 002). Conclusion: Comparison of SAPS-III and MPM-III in non-traumatic patients presented a higher discrimination ability for MPM-III. In addition, findings showed that Mortality in MPM-III was in association with duration of ICU admission and intubation while for SAPS-III, in addition to previous factors, total duration of hospitalization was associated as well.

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) is among the most important hospital wards. Variety of scoring systems for evaluation of patients' status and prediction of hospitalization outcomes in ICU has been raised that each has strong and weak points; assessment of these characteristics tends to promote new scoring systems. The current study compared scoring systems of Mortality Probability Model-III (MPM-III) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score-III (SAPS-III) in trauma patients in ICU. Methods: This randomized cross-sectional study was conducted on 200 patients admitted in ICU because of trauma in years 2016-17. Patients' information including demographics, mean of systolic, diastolic, and arterial blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, temperature, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), arterial gas analysis, white blood cell (WBC) counts, hematocrit, bilirubin, creatinine, type of admission, and presence of underlying diseases were extracted from records; MPM-III and SAPS-III were measured for these patients and compared. Findings: MPM-III scoring system had discrimination of 0. 935 [95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0. 89-0. 97; P < 0. 001) in cut-off point of 0. 13, and its sensitivity and specificity was 87% and 84%, respectively. For SAPS-III system, in cut-off point of 0. 13, the discrimination was 0. 77 (95%CI: 0. 69-0. 85; P < 0. 001), with the sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 68%. Based on both MPM-III and SAPS-III systems, Mortality was in correlation with duration of ICU admission (P = 0. 001 for both systems) and duration of intubation (P < 0. 001 for both systems), while only for SAPS-III, total duration of hospitalization was in correlation with Mortality (P < 0. 001). Conclusion: MPM-III scoring system was superior to SAPS-III regarding discrimination power in trauma patients. In addition, based on both systems, Mortality rate was in direct association with days of ICU admission and intubation duration.

Introduction: Covid-19 is currently the most important global health challenge as an emerging disease. The critical conditions of the epidemic covid-19 may have different effects on the rate of Mortality of other people in the community. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of corona crisis on Mortality in Jahrom County. Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was performed by secondary data analysis death certificate during 2016-2020. The studied variables were collected based on a checklist from the data of the death registration system of the health center and Mortality statistics announced by the organization for civil registration. Results: In a total of 3785 deaths occurred during the study period, of which 2250 (59. 5%) were in male and the rest were female. The average annual number of deaths before and after the Corona epidemic was 701 and 981, respectively. The highest death rate was in the age group over 70 years. Cardiovascular disease, cerebral infarction, and cancer were the three leading causes of death before the onset of Corona crisis, and cardiovascular disease, Covid-19, and cerebrovascular disease were the most common causes of death after the onset of Corona crisis, respectively. After the corona crisis, the number of deaths from road accidents and cancers decreased by 32. 60% and 48. 61%, respectively, and the Influenza-like illness increased by 110. 25%. Conclusion: The average number of deaths occurred after the Corona epidemic has increased by 39% compared to before the epidemic. Cardiovascular diseases are the first and most common causes of death in Jahrom before and after the Corona epidemic.

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice for most patients with end-stage renal disease which has resulted in improving the quality of life of these patients. Despite all improvements in the field of renal transplantation, Mortality after renal transplantation remains a serious problem. Regarding survival and Mortality of these patients, several studies rove been conducted which have produced varied results. This study was undertaken to examine survival and cause of death after renal transplantation in 207 patients who received a renal transplant between March 1993 and Jun 1996 at the Shariati Hospital.Eighteen patients died after renal transplantation in 4 (22-2%) of cases Where the cause was infection in 5 cases (27.8%), CNS problems in 5 cases (27.8%) and cardiovascular problems. The survival of patients was 94% at 1 year, 93% at 2 years and around 91% at 3 years.In the present study contrarily to other studies, cardiovascular problems were not the leading cause of death which could be due to the lower age of patients in this study. Malignancy was not found as a cause of death in this study although it has been reported as the frequent cause of death in other parts of the world. Perhaps low dosage of immunosuppressive drugs, less number of patients and limited follow up could be the reasons for this difference.