Suppr超能文献

内镜检查前的Rockall评分和Blatchford评分,用于识别哪些疑似胃肠道出血的急诊科患者不需要内镜止血。

Pre-endoscopic Rockall and Blatchford scores to identify which emergency department patients with suspected gastrointestinal bleed do not need endoscopic hemostasis.

作者信息

Meltzer Andrew C, Burnett Sarah, Pinchbeck Carrie, Brown Angela L, Choudhri Tina, Yadav Kabir, Fleischer David E, Pines Jesse M

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20037, USA.

出版信息

J Emerg Med. 2013 Jun;44(6):1083-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.11.021. Epub 2013 Jan 27.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The pre-endoscopic Rockall Score (RS) and the Glasgow-Blatchford Scores (GBS) can help risk stratify patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed who are seen in the Emergency Department (ED). The RS and GBS have yet to be validated in a United States patient population for their ability to discriminate which ED patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed do not need endoscopic hemostasis.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether patients who received a score of zero on either score (the lowest risk) in the ED still required upper endoscopic hemostasis during hospitalization.

METHODS

Retrospective electronic medical record chart review was performed during a 3-year period (2007-2009) to identify patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleed by ED final diagnosis of gastrointestinal hemorrhage and related terms at a single urban academic ED. The RS and GBS were calculated from ED chart abstraction and the hospital records of admitted patients were queried for subsequent endoscopic hemostasis.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ninety patients with gastrointestinal bleed were identified and 86% were admitted to the hospital. One hundred and twenty-two patients had an RS equal to zero; 67 (55%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 46-63%) of these patients were admitted to the hospital and 11 (16%; 95% CI 9-27%) received endoscopic hemostasis. Sixty-three patients had a GBS equal to zero; 15 (24%; 95% CI 15-36%) were admitted to the hospital and 2 (13%; 95% CI 4-38%) received endoscopic hemostasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Some patients who were identified as lowest risk by the GBS or RS still received endoscopic hemostasis during hospital admission. These clinical decision rules may be insufficiently sensitive to predict which patients do not require endoscopic hemostasis.

摘要

背景

内镜检查前的罗卡尔评分(RS)和格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分(GBS)有助于对急诊科(ED)就诊的上消化道出血患者进行风险分层。RS和GBS在美国患者群体中尚未就其区分哪些上消化道出血的ED患者不需要内镜止血的能力进行验证。

目的

我们试图确定在急诊科RS或GBS评分为零(最低风险)的患者在住院期间是否仍需要进行上消化道内镜止血。

方法

在3年期间(2007 - 2009年)进行回顾性电子病历图表审查,以通过单一城市学术性急诊科对胃肠道出血及相关术语的最终诊断来识别疑似上消化道出血的患者。根据急诊科图表摘要计算RS和GBS,并查询入院患者的医院记录以了解随后的内镜止血情况。

结果

共识别出690例胃肠道出血患者,其中86%入院。122例患者RS评分为零;这些患者中有67例(55%;95%置信区间[CI] 46 - 63%)入院,11例(16%;95% CI 9 - 27%)接受了内镜止血。63例患者GBS评分为零;15例(24%;95% CI 15 - 36%)入院,2例(13%;95% CI 4 - 38%)接受了内镜止血。

结论

一些被GBS或RS判定为最低风险的患者在住院期间仍接受了内镜止血。这些临床决策规则在预测哪些患者不需要内镜止血方面可能不够敏感。

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