• 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

Predicting in-hospital survival of myocardial infarction. A comparative study of various severity measures.

作者信息

Alemi F, Rice J, Hankins R

机构信息

Graduate Studies in Healthcare Administration, Cleveland State University, OH.

出版信息

Med Care. 1990 Sep;28(9):762-75. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199009000-00006.

DOI:10.1097/00005650-199009000-00006
PMID:2402171
Abstract

This study reports on the ability of several indices to predict in-hospital survival from acute myocardial infarction. The following indices were included: Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), Medisgroups (MDGRP), Computerized Severity Index (CSI), Patient Management Categories (PMC), Coded Disease Staging (CDS), Ischemic Heart Disease Index (IHDI), and Predictive Index for Myocardial Infarction (PIMI). An arbitrary strategy of predicting that all patients will live was also applied and correctly classified 78% of the cases. Severity indices improve these predictions by up to 6% more. Comparison of relative accuracy of the indices showed that all indices were more accurate than PIMI and, for medically treated patients, CSI was more accurate than MDGRP, CDS, APACHE II, and IHDI. There were no other statistically significant difference in the predictive ability of remaining indices. Indices based on discharge abstracts were as accurate as some of the indices based on physiologic variables, in particular PMC was as accurate as CSI, MDGRP, APACHE, and IHDI, and CDS was as accurate as MDGRP, APACHE, and IHDI. This study was limited in scope and application and should not be generalized to other settings until additional data confirm the findings. We discuss the implications of these findings for measuring quality of care and suggest improvements for design of future severity indices.

摘要

相似文献

1
Predicting in-hospital survival of myocardial infarction. A comparative study of various severity measures.
Med Care. 1990 Sep;28(9):762-75. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199009000-00006.
2
Predicting hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Am J Crit Care. 1994 May;3(3):168-76.
3
Illness severity scoring for Intensive Care at Middlemore Hospital, New Zealand: past and future.新西兰米德尔莫尔医院重症监护的疾病严重程度评分:过去与未来。
N Z Med J. 2010 Jun 11;123(1316):47-65.
4
Comparison of two simplified severity scores (SAPS and APACHE II) for patients with acute myocardial infarction.两种简化严重程度评分(简化急性生理学评分和急性生理与慢性健康状况评分II)在急性心肌梗死患者中的比较。
Crit Care Med. 1989 May;17(5):409-13. doi: 10.1097/00003246-198905000-00006.
5
Complicated acute myocardial infarction requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit: prognostic factors of clinical outcome in a series of 157 patients.重症监护病房中需要机械通气的复杂急性心肌梗死:157例患者临床结局的预后因素
Crit Care Med. 2004 Jan;32(1):100-5. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098605.58349.76.
6
Predicting who dies depends on how severity is measured: implications for evaluating patient outcomes.预测死亡对象取决于严重程度的衡量方式:对评估患者预后的启示。
Ann Intern Med. 1995 Nov 15;123(10):763-70. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-123-10-199511150-00004.
7
Prediction of outcome in intensive care unit trauma patients: a multicenter study of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), and a 24-hour intensive care unit (ICU) point system.重症监护病房创伤患者预后的预测:急性生理学与慢性健康状况评估(APACHE)、创伤和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)以及24小时重症监护病房(ICU)评分系统的多中心研究
J Trauma. 1999 Aug;47(2):324-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199908000-00017.
8
Evaluation of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation III predictions of hospital mortality in an independent database.在一个独立数据库中对急性生理学与慢性健康状况评估III预测医院死亡率的评估。
Crit Care Med. 1998 Aug;26(8):1317-26. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199808000-00012.
9
The utility of severity of illness information in assessing the quality of hospital care. The role of the clinical trajectory.疾病严重程度信息在评估医院护理质量中的作用。临床病程的作用。
Med Care. 1992 May;30(5):428-44. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205000-00005.
10
In-hospital mortality due to acute myocardial infarction. relevance of type of hospital and care provided. RECALCAR study.急性心肌梗死导致的院内死亡率。医院类型及所提供护理的相关性。RECALCAR研究。
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2013 Dec;66(12):935-42. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2013.06.006. Epub 2013 Sep 14.

引用本文的文献

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
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.
3
Prediction of mortality for congestive heart failure patients: results from different wards of an Italian teaching hospital.
Eur J Epidemiol. 2000;16(11):1017-21. doi: 10.1023/a:1010841102298.
4
Risk-adjusting acute myocardial infarction mortality: are APR-DRGs the right tool?风险调整急性心肌梗死死亡率:APR-DRG是合适的工具吗?
Health Serv Res. 2000 Mar;34(7):1469-89.
5
Routine data: a resource for clinical audit?常规数据:临床审计的一种资源?
Qual Health Care. 1993 Jun;2(2):104-11. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2.2.104.
6
A comparison of three techniques for rapid model development: an application in patient risk-stratification.三种快速模型开发技术的比较:在患者风险分层中的应用
Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996:443-7.
7
Lessons from evaluating an automated patient severity index.评估自动患者严重程度指数的经验教训。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996 Sep-Oct;3(5):349-57. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1996.97035026.
8
Linking the Computerized Severity Index (CSI) to coded patient findings in the HELP system patient database.将计算机化严重程度指数(CSI)与HELP系统患者数据库中的编码患者检查结果相链接。
Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993:673-7.
9
An evaluation of factors influencing Bayesian learning systems.影响贝叶斯学习系统的因素评估。
Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993:485-91.
10
An automated Computerized Severity Index.一种自动化的计算机化严重程度指数。
Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:332-6.