Suppr超能文献

序贯器官衰竭评估系统3(SAPS 3)、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统IV(APACHE IV)还是全球急性冠状动脉事件注册研究(GRACE)评分:重症监护病房中的急性冠状动脉综合征患者应选择哪种评分系统?

SAPS 3, APACHE IV or GRACE: which score to choose for acute coronary syndrome patients in intensive care units?

作者信息

Nassar Junior Antonio Paulo, Mocelin Amilcar Oshiro, Andrade Fabio Moreira, Brauer Leonardo, Giannini Fabio Poianas, Nunes Andre Luiz Baptiston, Dias Carlos Augusto

机构信息

Hospital São Camilo, São Paulo, Brazil.

出版信息

Sao Paulo Med J. 2013;131(3):173-8. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2013.1313474.

Abstract

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are a common cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Specific prognostic scores have been developed and validated for ACS patients and, among them, GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) has had the best performance. However, intensive care clinicians generally use prognostic scores developed from heterogeneous populations of critically ill patients, such as APACHE IV (Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation IV) and SAPS 3 (Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3). The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of these three scores in a non-selected population of ACS cases. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective observational study to evaluate three prognostic scores in a population of ACS patients admitted to three general ICUs in private hospitals in São Paulo. METHODS All patients with ACS admitted from July 2008 to December 2009 were considered for inclusion in the study. Score calibration and discrimination were evaluated in relation to predicting hospital mortality. RESULTS A total of 1065 patients were included. The calibration was appropriate for APACHE IV and GRACE but not for SAPS 3. The discrimination was very good for all scores (area under curve of 0.862 for GRACE, 0.860 for APACHE IV and 0.804 for SAPS 3). CONCLUSIONS In this population of ACS patients admitted to ICUs, GRACE and APACHE IV were adequately calibrated, but SAPS 3 was not. All three scores had very good discrimination. GRACE and APACHE IV may be used for predicting mortality risk among ACS patients.

摘要

背景与目的

急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)是重症监护病房(ICU)收治患者的常见病因。已针对ACS患者开发并验证了特定的预后评分,其中GRACE(急性冠状动脉事件全球注册研究)表现最佳。然而,重症监护临床医生通常使用从危重症患者异质性群体中得出的预后评分,如APACHE IV(急性生理与慢性健康状况评估IV)和SAPS 3(简化急性生理学评分3)。本研究旨在评估和比较这三种评分在未经过筛选的ACS病例群体中的表现。

设计与背景

回顾性观察研究,以评估圣保罗私立医院三个普通ICU收治的ACS患者群体中的三种预后评分。

方法

纳入2008年7月至2009年12月收治的所有ACS患者进行研究。评估评分校准和区分度与预测医院死亡率的关系。

结果

共纳入1065例患者。APACHE IV和GRACE的校准合适,但SAPS 3不合适。所有评分的区分度都很好(GRACE曲线下面积为0.862,APACHE IV为0.860,SAPS 3为0.804)。

结论

在这些入住ICU的ACS患者群体中,GRACE和APACHE IV校准得当,但SAPS 3未校准。所有三种评分的区分度都很好。GRACE和APACHE IV可用于预测ACS患者的死亡风险。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/360d/10852116/d78bb1ca6239/1806-9460-spmj-131-03-173-gf1.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

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