Gu Y-H, Zhao Z
Qinghai Provincial People's Hospital, 2 Gonghe Lu, Xining, China.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014 Nov;18(22):3517-20.
To analyze the clinical values of three commonly used scoring systems including Wells score, revised Geneva score and Pisa score in predicting pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) in Xining area.
A total of 67 patients who had received CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in Qinghai Provincial People's Hospital from January 1, 2008 to July 31, 2010 due to suspected acute PTE were enrolled in this study. Among them 30 were confirmed to be with acute PTE and 37 were excluded. The risk of PTE was evaluated using the Wells score, the revised Geneva score, and Pisa score in all these patients. Clinical values of these scoring systems in diagnosis of PTE were compared using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves; and CTPA values as the standard. The diagnostic accuracies were also compared.
The probability of PTE was 33.3% (14/42) when the Wells score was <2, 89.47% (17/19) when the Wells score was 2-6, and 100% (6/6) when the Wells score was above 6. The probability of PTE was 31.71% (13/40) when the revised Geneva score was 0-3, 85.0% (17/20) when the revised Geneva score was 4-10, and 100% (7/7) when the revised Geneva score was ≥11, suggesting that PTE might be associated with the revised Geneva score (p<0.001). When Pisa score was used, the probability of PTE was 20.59% (7/34), at ≥10%, 76.92% (10/13), at 10% to 90%, and 100% (20/20) at >90% score. The AUCs for all three scoring systems showed significant differences (p<0.05).
Thus, the Pisa score showed a relatively higher clinical value in Xining area to predict clinical probability of PTE in patients, with its overall sensitivity and specificity being higher than the Wells and revised Geneva score.
分析Wells评分、修订的Geneva评分和Pisa评分这三种常用评分系统在预测西宁地区肺血栓栓塞症(PTE)中的临床价值。
选取2008年1月1日至2010年7月31日期间因疑似急性PTE在青海省人民医院接受CT肺动脉造影(CTPA)检查的67例患者纳入本研究。其中30例确诊为急性PTE,37例排除。对所有这些患者使用Wells评分、修订的Geneva评分和Pisa评分评估PTE风险。以CTPA结果为标准,采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线比较这些评分系统在诊断PTE中的临床价值;并比较诊断准确性。
Wells评分<2分时,PTE的概率为33.3%(14/42);Wells评分为2 - 6分时,PTE的概率为89.47%(17/19);Wells评分>6分时,PTE的概率为100%(6/6)。修订的Geneva评分为0 - 3分时,PTE的概率为31.71%(13/40);修订的Geneva评分为4 - 10分时,PTE的概率为85.0%(17/20);修订的Geneva评分≥11分时,PTE的概率为100%(7/7),提示PTE可能与修订的Geneva评分有关(p<0.001)。使用Pisa评分时,Pisa评分<10%时,PTE的概率为20.59%(7/34);Pisa评分为10%至90%时,PTE的概率为76.92%(10/13);Pisa评分>90%时,PTE的概率为100%(20/20)。三种评分系统的曲线下面积(AUC)显示出显著差异(p<0.05)。
因此,Pisa评分在西宁地区预测患者PTE临床概率方面显示出相对较高的临床价值,其总体敏感性和特异性高于Wells评分和修订的Geneva评分。