急性生理与慢性健康状况评估(APACHE)II评分与格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)在预测神经外科重症监护病房患者医院死亡率方面的比较。

Comparison of the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score (APACHE) II with GCS in predicting hospital mortality of neurosurgical intensive care unit patients.

作者信息

Zali Ali Reza, Seddighi Amir Saied, Seddighi Afsoun, Ashrafi Farzad

机构信息

Neurosurgery Research Center of Shohada Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehran, Iran.

出版信息

Glob J Health Sci. 2012 Apr 28;4(3):179-84. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v4n3p179.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is popular, simple, and reliable, and provides information about the level of consciousness in trauma patients. However, a systemic evaluation scale specially in patients with multiple trauma is so important. The revised Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation system type 2 (APACHE II) is a physiologically based system including physiological variables. This study compares the efficacy of the predicting power for mortality and functional outcome of GCS and APACHEII in patients with multiple trauma in intensive care unit.

METHODS

This study included the patients with head injury associated with systemic trauma admitted in the ICU of Shahid Rajaee Hospital in 2007 and 2008. Sensitivity, specificity and correct prediction of outcome by GCS and APACHE II were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

This study included 93 patients (79 males, 14 females; mean age 60.5; range 14 to 87 years) with head injury associated with systemic trauma in 2007 and 2008. Mortality increased in the elderly group. The mean survival score using APACHE II was 36.5 and death score was 67.4 . These values using GCS were 10.3 and 6.8, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For the assessment of mortality, the GCS score still provides simple, less-time consuming and effective information concerning head injury patients, especially in emergencies; however, for the prediction of mortality in patients with multiple trauma. APACHE II is superior to GCS since it includes the main physiologic parameters of patients.

摘要

背景

格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)应用广泛、简单且可靠,能提供创伤患者的意识水平信息。然而,专门针对多发伤患者的系统评估量表非常重要。修订的急性生理学与慢性健康状况评价系统Ⅱ型(APACHEⅡ)是一个基于生理学的系统,包含生理变量。本研究比较了GCS和APACHEⅡ对重症监护病房多发伤患者死亡率和功能转归的预测效能。

方法

本研究纳入了2007年和2008年在沙希德拉贾伊医院重症监护病房收治的合并全身创伤的颅脑损伤患者。评估并比较GCS和APACHEⅡ对结局的敏感性、特异性及正确预测情况。

结果

本研究纳入了2007年和2008年的93例合并全身创伤的颅脑损伤患者(79例男性,14例女性;平均年龄60.5岁;范围14至87岁)。老年组死亡率增加。使用APACHEⅡ的平均生存评分是36.5,死亡评分是67.4。使用GCS的这些值分别为10.3和6.8。

结论

对于死亡率评估,GCS评分仍能为颅脑损伤患者提供简单、省时且有效的信息,尤其是在紧急情况下;然而,对于多发伤患者的死亡率预测,APACHEⅡ优于GCS,因为它包含了患者的主要生理参数。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0999/4776917/f040494adb49/GJHS-4-179-g001.jpg

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