Suppr超能文献

在神经外科重症监护病房中,比较急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅲ(APACHE III)、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHE II)及格拉斯哥昏迷量表对死亡率的预测能力。

Comparison of APACHE III, II and the Glasgow Coma Scale for prediction of mortality in a neurosurgical intensive care unit.

作者信息

Cho D Y, Wang Y C, Lee M J

机构信息

Division of Neurosurgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Yang-Ming Medical University, Taiwan, China.

出版信息

Clin Intensive Care. 1995;6(1):9-14.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the efficacy of predicting power for hospital mortality of three different scoring systems in a neurosurgical intensive care unit (NICU).

SETTING

An eight-bed NICU in a 1,270-bed medical centre (Taichung Veterans General Hospital).

SUBJECTS

Two hundred patients with head injury, brain tumour, hypertensive intracerebral haemorrhage, rupture of aneurysm or arteriovenous malformation, or other categories were included in our study in a consecutive period of 14 months. Patients less than 14 years old were not included.

DESIGN

On the first day of admission, data were collected from each patient to compute the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health (APACHE) II and III, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores. Hospital mortality was defined as when death occurred before discharge from hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

none.

MEASUREMENTS

Sensitivity, specificity and correct prediction outcomes were measured by logistic regression in three scoring systems. The Youden index was also obtained. The best cutoff point in each scoring system was determined by logistic regression or by the Youden index. Data obtained by logistic regression were compared by McNemar's test. The differences in Youden index were calculated by the Student's t-test. The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was computed and the area of each scoring system was then compared by the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test.

MAIN RESULTS

The correct prediction of outcome was 85.5% in APACHE III, 77.5% in APACHE II and 75.0% in GCS. The area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.892 in APACHE III, 0.826 in APACHE II and 0.868 in GCS. For the prediction of dead patients at the best cutoff point, APACHE III and GCS were better than APACHE II, (both p < 0.01 respectively). For the prediction of alive patients at the best cutoff point, APACHE III was better than GCS and APACHE II (p < 0.01 respectively).

CONCLUSION

The APACHE III system seems to be the most reliable. The results reveal that the APACHE III system is better in predicting power for hospital mortality than either the GCS or APACHE II systems in our NICU patients.

摘要

目的

本研究考察了三种不同评分系统对神经外科重症监护病房(NICU)患者医院死亡率的预测效能。

设置

台中荣民总医院,一家拥有1270张床位的医疗中心内的一个八床位NICU。

研究对象

在连续14个月的时间里,纳入了200例头部受伤、脑肿瘤、高血压性脑出血、动脉瘤或动静脉畸形破裂或其他病症的患者。不包括14岁以下的患者。

设计

入院第一天,收集每位患者的数据以计算急性生理与慢性健康状况(APACHE)II和III评分以及格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分。医院死亡率定义为在出院前死亡。

干预措施

无。

测量指标

通过逻辑回归在三种评分系统中测量敏感性、特异性和正确预测结果。还获得了约登指数。每个评分系统的最佳截断点通过逻辑回归或约登指数确定。通过McNemar检验比较逻辑回归获得的数据。通过学生t检验计算约登指数的差异。计算受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积,然后通过Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney检验比较每个评分系统的面积。

主要结果

APACHE III对结果的正确预测率为85.5%,APACHE II为77.5%,GCS为75.0%。APACHE III的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积为0.892,APACHE II为0.826,GCS为0.868。在最佳截断点预测死亡患者时,APACHE III和GCS优于APACHE II(p值均分别<0.01)。在最佳截断点预测存活患者时,APACHE III优于GCS和APACHE II(p值均分别<0.01)。

结论

APACHE III系统似乎是最可靠的。结果表明,在我们的NICU患者中,APACHE III系统在预测医院死亡率方面比GCS或APACHE II系统更好。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验