Suppr超能文献

与一般病情严重程度评分相比,特定的肿瘤学评分系统在预测入住重症监护病房并出现急性医疗并发症的癌症患者的预后方面是否更具优势?

Is a specific oncological scoring system better at predicting the prognosis of cancer patients admitted for an acute medical complication in an intensive care unit than general gravity scores?

作者信息

Berghmans T, Paesmans M, Sculier J P

机构信息

Critical Care Department and Thoracic Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Centre des Tumeurs de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles, Rue Héger-Bordet, 1, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.

出版信息

Support Care Cancer. 2004 Apr;12(4):234-9. doi: 10.1007/s00520-003-0580-3. Epub 2004 Jan 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a specific oncologic scoring system-the ICU Cancer Mortality model (ICM)-in predicting hospital mortality in comparison to two general severity scores-the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) and the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All 247 patients admitted for a medical acute complication over an 18-month period in an oncological medical intensive care unit were prospectively registered. Their data, including type of complication, vital status at discharge and cancer characteristics as well as other variables necessary to calculate the three scoring systems were retrospectively assessed.

RESULTS

Observed in-hospital mortality was 34%. The predicted in-hospital mortality rate for APACHE II was 32%; SAPS II, 24%; and ICM, 28%. The goodness of fit was inadequate except for the ICM score. Comparison of the area under the ROC curves revealed a better fit for ICM (area 0.79). The maximum correct classification rate was 72% for APACHE II, 74% for SAPS II and 77% for ICM. APACHE II and SAPS II were better at predicting outcome for survivors to hospital discharge, although ICM was better for non-survivors. Two variables were independently predicting the risk of death during hospitalisation: ICM (OR=2.31) and SAPS II (OR=1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Gravity scores were the single independent predictors for hospital mortality, and ICM was equivalent to APACHE II and SAPS II.

摘要

目的

评估一种特定的肿瘤学评分系统——重症监护病房癌症死亡率模型(ICM),与两种通用的严重程度评分——急性生理与慢性健康状况评估(APACHE II)和简化急性生理学评分(SAPS II)相比,在预测医院死亡率方面的有效性。

患者与方法

前瞻性登记了在肿瘤内科重症监护病房18个月期间因医学急性并发症入院的所有247例患者。回顾性评估了他们的数据,包括并发症类型、出院时的生命状态、癌症特征以及计算这三种评分系统所需的其他变量。

结果

观察到的院内死亡率为34%。APACHE II预测的院内死亡率为32%;SAPS II为24%;ICM为28%。除ICM评分外,拟合优度均不足。ROC曲线下面积的比较显示ICM拟合度更好(面积为0.79)。APACHE II的最大正确分类率为72%,SAPS II为74%,ICM为77%。APACHE II和SAPS II在预测出院存活者的结局方面表现更好,尽管ICM在预测非存活者方面表现更好。两个变量独立预测住院期间的死亡风险:ICM(OR = 2.31)和SAPS II(OR = 1.05)。

结论

严重程度评分是医院死亡率的单一独立预测因素,ICM与APACHE II和SAPS II相当。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验