• 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

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.

DOI:10.1590/1516-3180.2013.1313474
PMID:23903266
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10852116/
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
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/360d/10852116/d78bb1ca6239/1806-9460-spmj-131-03-173-gf1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/360d/10852116/d78bb1ca6239/1806-9460-spmj-131-03-173-gf1.jpg

相似文献

1
SAPS 3, APACHE IV or GRACE: which score to choose for acute coronary syndrome patients in intensive care units?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?
Sao Paulo Med J. 2013;131(3):173-8. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2013.1313474.
2
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.
3
Performance of three prognostic models in critically ill patients with cancer: a prospective study.三种预后模型在癌症重症患者中的表现:一项前瞻性研究。
Int J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul;25(7):1242-1249. doi: 10.1007/s10147-020-01659-0. Epub 2020 Mar 24.
4
Comparison of the performance of SAPS II, SAPS 3, APACHE II, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit.外科重症监护病房中急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(SAPS II)、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统3(SAPS 3)、急性生理和慢性健康评价II(APACHE II)及其定制预后模型的性能比较。
Br J Anaesth. 2008 Dec;101(6):798-803. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen291. Epub 2008 Oct 9.
5
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.
6
Feasibility of transitioning from APACHE II to SAPS III as prognostic model in a Brazilian general intensive care unit. A retrospective study.在巴西一家综合重症监护病房中,从急性生理学及慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)转换为简化急性生理学评分系统III(SAPS III)作为预后模型的可行性。一项回顾性研究。
Sao Paulo Med J. 2015 May-Jun;133(3):199-205. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2013.8120014. Epub 2014 Oct 17.
7
Validation of the Sepsis Severity Score Compared with Updated Severity Scores in Predicting Hospital Mortality in Sepsis Patients.脓毒症严重程度评分与更新后的严重程度评分在预测脓毒症患者医院死亡率方面的验证
Shock. 2017 Jun;47(6):720-725. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000818.
8
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.
9
Prognostic scores in a gastroenterology intensive care unit.胃肠病重症监护病房的预后评分。
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2010 Oct;102(10):596-601. doi: 10.4321/s1130-01082010001000006.
10
Caution when using prognostic models: a prospective comparison of 3 recent prognostic models.使用预后模型时需谨慎:3 种近期预后模型的前瞻性比较。
J Crit Care. 2012 Aug;27(4):423.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.08.016. Epub 2011 Oct 26.

引用本文的文献

1
The Ability of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV Score to Predict Mortality in a Single Tertiary Hospital.急性生理与慢性健康状况评估(APACHE)IV评分在某三级医院预测死亡率的能力。
Korean J Crit Care Med. 2017 Aug;32(3):275-283. doi: 10.4266/kjccm.2016.00990. Epub 2017 Aug 31.
2
APACHE IV score in postoperative kidney transplantation.肾移植术后的急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统IV评分
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2018 Apr-Jun;30(2):181-186. doi: 10.5935/0103-507X.20180032.
3
External validation of SAPS 3 and MPM-III scores in 48,816 patients from 72 Brazilian ICUs.

本文引用的文献

1
[Guidelines of the Brazilian Society of Cardiology on unstable angina and myocardial infarction without ST segment elevation (second edition, 2007).].[巴西心脏病学会关于非ST段抬高型不稳定型心绞痛和心肌梗死的指南(第二版,2007年)。]
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007;89(4 Suppl 1):e92-131.
2
[Prognostic value of GRACE scores versus TIMI score in acute coronary syndromes].[GRACE评分与TIMI评分对急性冠脉综合征的预后价值]
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2010 May;94(5):613-9. doi: 10.1590/s0066-782x2010005000036. Epub 2010 Apr 23.
3
Clinical review: scoring systems in the critically ill.
对来自巴西72家重症监护病房的48816例患者的简化急性生理学评分系统3(SAPS 3)和死亡率预测模型-III(MPM-III)评分进行外部验证。
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13613-017-0276-3. Epub 2017 May 18.
4
Validation of the APACHE IV model and its comparison with the APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 models for the prediction of hospital mortality in a Korean surgical intensive care unit.急性生理学及慢性健康状况评分系统IV(APACHE IV)模型的验证及其与急性生理学及慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)、简化急性生理学评分系统3(SAPS 3)和韩国简化急性生理学评分系统3(Korean SAPS 3)模型在韩国外科重症监护病房预测医院死亡率方面的比较。
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014 Aug;67(2):115-22. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2014.67.2.115. Epub 2014 Aug 26.
5
Evaluation of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 performance: a systematic review of external validation studies.简化急性生理学评分3(SAPS 3)性能评估:外部验证研究的系统评价
Crit Care. 2014 Jun 6;18(3):R117. doi: 10.1186/cc13911.
临床综述:危重症患者的评分系统。
Crit Care. 2010;14(2):207. doi: 10.1186/cc8204. Epub 2010 Mar 26.
4
APACHE-II score and Killip class for patients with acute myocardial infarction.急性心肌梗死患者的 APACHE-II 评分和 Killip 分级。
Intensive Care Med. 2010 Sep;36(9):1579-86. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1832-6. Epub 2010 Mar 24.
5
Does simplicity compromise accuracy in ACS risk prediction? A retrospective analysis of the TIMI and GRACE risk scores.ACS 风险预测中简单化是否会影响准确性?TIMI 和 GRACE 风险评分的回顾性分析。
PLoS One. 2009 Nov 23;4(11):e7947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007947.
6
External validation of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3 in a cohort of 28,357 patients from 147 Italian intensive care units.对来自 147 家意大利重症监护病房的 28357 例患者队列进行简化急性生理学评分(SAPS)3 的外部验证。
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Nov;35(11):1916-24. doi: 10.1007/s00134-009-1615-0. Epub 2009 Aug 14.
7
Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model.预后与预后研究:验证一个预后模型。
BMJ. 2009 May 28;338:b605. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b605.
8
Critical illness outcomes in specialty versus general intensive care units.专科重症监护病房与综合重症监护病房的危重病治疗结果。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Apr 15;179(8):676-83. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200808-1281OC. Epub 2009 Feb 6.
9
Austrian validation and customization of the SAPS 3 Admission Score.奥地利对SAPS 3入院评分的验证与定制
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Apr;35(4):616-22. doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1286-2. Epub 2008 Oct 10.
10
Outcome prediction in critical care: the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation models.重症监护中的预后预测:急性生理学与慢性健康状况评估模型
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008 Oct;14(5):491-7. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32830864c0.