• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

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.

DOI:10.1007/s00520-003-0580-3
PMID:14740281
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。

相似文献

1
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?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?
Support Care Cancer. 2004 Apr;12(4):234-9. doi: 10.1007/s00520-003-0580-3. Epub 2004 Jan 23.
2
Scoring systems in cancer patients admitted for an acute complication in a medical intensive care unit.入住医疗重症监护病房并出现急性并发症的癌症患者的评分系统。
Crit Care Med. 2000 Aug;28(8):2786-92. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200008000-00018.
3
Performance of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 In Predicting Hospital Mortality In Emergency Intensive Care Unit.简化急性生理学评分3在预测急诊重症监护病房患者医院死亡率中的表现
Chin Med J (Engl). 2017 Jul 5;130(13):1544-1551. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.208250.
4
Effectiveness of the sequential organ failure assessment, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II, and simplified acute physiology score II prognostic scoring systems in paraquat-poisoned patients in the intensive care unit.序贯器官衰竭评估、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II及简化急性生理学评分系统II在重症监护病房百草枯中毒患者中的预后评分系统的有效性。
Hum Exp Toxicol. 2017 May;36(5):431-437. doi: 10.1177/0960327116657602. Epub 2016 Jul 6.
5
Performance of three prognostic models in patients with cancer in need of intensive care in a medical center in China.中国某医疗中心中,三种预后模型在需要重症监护的癌症患者中的表现。
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 25;10(6):e0131329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131329. eCollection 2015.
6
Comparison of three severity scores for critically ill cancer patients.危重症癌症患者三种严重程度评分的比较。
Intensive Care Med. 2004 Mar;30(3):430-6. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-2043-1. Epub 2003 Nov 4.
7
A comparison of APACHE II and SAPS II scoring systems in predicting hospital mortality in Thai adult intensive care units.急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)和简化急性生理学评分系统II(SAPS II)在预测泰国成人重症监护病房患者医院死亡率方面的比较。
J Med Assoc Thai. 2007 Apr;90(4):643-52.
8
Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluations II and III and simplified acute physiology score II: a prospective cohort study evaluating these methods to predict outcome in a German interdisciplinary intensive care unit.急性生理学与慢性健康状况评估II和III与简化急性生理学评分II的比较:一项前瞻性队列研究,评估这些方法在德国跨学科重症监护病房中预测预后的情况。
Crit Care Med. 2000 Jan;28(1):26-33. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200001000-00005.
9
Severity scores in respiratory intensive care: APACHE II predicted mortality better than SAPS II.呼吸重症监护中的严重程度评分:急性生理学及慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)在预测死亡率方面优于简化急性生理学评分系统II(SAPS II)。
Respir Care. 1995 Oct;40(10):1042-7.
10
[Predictive values of different critical scoring systems for survival rate after discharge in critically ill patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].[不同危急评分系统对体外膜肺氧合支持的危重症患者出院后生存率的预测价值]
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2018 May;30(5):456-460. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2018.05.012.

引用本文的文献

1
Scoring systems in critically ill: Which one to use in cancer patients?危重症评分系统:癌症患者应使用哪一种?
World J Crit Care Med. 2022 Nov 9;11(6):364-374. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v11.i6.364.
2
Evaluation and Validation of Four Scoring Systems: the APACHE IV, SAPS III, MPM0 II, and ICMM in Critically Ill Cancer Patients.四种评分系统的评估与验证:急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统IV(APACHE IV)、序贯器官衰竭评估(SAPS III)、第二代多器官功能不全评分(MPM0 II)以及危重症癌症患者综合评分(ICMM)
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020 Apr;24(4):263-269. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23407.
3
Are Intensive Cares Worthwhile for Breast Cancer Patients: The Experience of an Oncological ICU.

本文引用的文献

1
Predictors of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with solid malignancies.实体恶性肿瘤重症患者短期死亡率的预测因素。
Intensive Care Med. 2000 Dec;26(12):1817-23. doi: 10.1007/s001340051350.
2
Predictive factors of death in primary lung cancer patients on admission to the intensive care unit.原发性肺癌患者入住重症监护病房时的死亡预测因素。
Intensive Care Med. 2000 Dec;26(12):1811-6. doi: 10.1007/s001340000701.
3
Scoring systems in cancer patients admitted for an acute complication in a medical intensive care unit.
重症监护对乳腺癌患者是否值得:肿瘤重症监护病房的经验
Front Med (Lausanne). 2016 Oct 31;3:50. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2016.00050. eCollection 2016.
4
Rate and patterns of ICU admission among colorectal cancer patients: a single-center experience.结直肠癌患者入住重症监护病房的比率及模式:单中心经验
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Jun;23(6):1779-85. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2524-5. Epub 2014 Dec 4.
5
Validation of four prognostic scores in patients with cancer admitted to Brazilian intensive care units: results from a prospective multicenter study.四项预后评分在巴西重症监护病房癌症患者中的验证:一项前瞻性多中心研究的结果。
Intensive Care Med. 2010 Jul;36(7):1188-95. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1807-7. Epub 2010 Mar 11.
6
Can SAPS II predict operative mortality more accurately than POSSUM and P-POSSUM in patients with colorectal carcinoma undergoing resection?在接受手术切除的结直肠癌患者中,序贯器官衰竭评估(SAPS)II 评分在预测手术死亡率方面是否比手术风险评分(POSSUM)和改良 POSSUM(P-POSSUM)更准确?
World J Surg. 2008 Apr;32(4):589-95. doi: 10.1007/s00268-007-9321-y.
7
Validation of the SAPS 3 admission prognostic model in patients with cancer in need of intensive care.SAPS 3入院预后模型在需要重症监护的癌症患者中的验证。
Intensive Care Med. 2006 Nov;32(11):1839-44. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0374-4. Epub 2006 Sep 15.
8
Changes in severity and organ failure scores as prognostic factors in onco-hematological malignancy patients admitted to the ICU.入住重症监护病房的肿瘤血液系统恶性肿瘤患者中,严重程度和器官衰竭评分变化作为预后因素。
Intensive Care Med. 2006 Oct;32(10):1560-8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0286-3. Epub 2006 Aug 1.
9
Bench-to-bedside review: outcome predictions for critically ill patients in the emergency department.从实验室到临床的综述:急诊科危重症患者的预后预测
Crit Care. 2005 Aug;9(4):376-83. doi: 10.1186/cc3518. Epub 2005 Apr 18.
10
Performance of prognostic models in critically ill cancer patients - a review.危重症癌症患者预后模型的性能——综述
Crit Care. 2005 Aug;9(4):R458-63. doi: 10.1186/cc3765. Epub 2005 Jul 8.
入住医疗重症监护病房并出现急性并发症的癌症患者的评分系统。
Crit Care Med. 2000 Aug;28(8):2786-92. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200008000-00018.
4
Outcome and prognostic factors in critically ill cancer patients admitted to the intensive care unit.入住重症监护病房的重症癌症患者的结局及预后因素
Crit Care Med. 2000 May;28(5):1322-8. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200005000-00011.
5
Physician risk assessment and APACHE scores in cardiac care units.心脏监护病房中的医生风险评估与急性生理学及慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE)评分
Clin Cardiol. 1999 May;22(5):366-8. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960220514.
6
Multicenter outcome study of cancer patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a probability of mortality model.入住重症监护病房的癌症患者多中心结局研究:死亡率概率模型
J Clin Oncol. 1998 Feb;16(2):761-70. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.2.761.
7
Prognostic factors for neutropenic patients in an intensive care unit: respective roles of underlying malignancies and acute organ failures.重症监护病房中性粒细胞减少患者的预后因素:潜在恶性肿瘤和急性器官衰竭的各自作用。
Eur J Cancer. 1997 Jun;33(7):1031-7. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(97)00042-7.
8
Predicting survival in AIDS patients with respiratory failure. Application of the APACHE II scoring system.
Crit Care Clin. 1993 Jan;9(1):89-105.
9
Importance of pre-existing co-morbidities for prognosis of septicemia in critically ill patients.
Intensive Care Med. 1993;19(5):265-72. doi: 10.1007/BF01690546.
10
A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study.基于一项欧洲/北美多中心研究的新型简化急性生理学评分(SAPS II)。
JAMA. 1993;270(24):2957-63. doi: 10.1001/jama.270.24.2957.