Emergency Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
General Laboratory Unit, Medical Services Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Intern Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;13(3):397-404. doi: 10.1007/s11739-017-1618-8. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
We analysed the clinical features and diagnostic workup of patients presenting with haemoptysis to an Italian teaching hospital to derive an easy-to-use clinical score to guide risk stratification and initial management in the emergency department (ED). We retrospectively reviewed clinical records of consecutive patients with haemoptysis over 1 year. A pre-specified set of variables, including demographic data, vital signs, type of expectorate (pure blood vs. blood-streaked sputum), comorbidities, and diagnostic tests and treatments was originally registered. The primary outcome was a composite of any of the following: death from any cause, invasive or non-invasive ventilation, Intensive Care Unit admission, blood transfusions or invasive haemostatic procedures. We investigated associations between the pre-specified clinical variables and the primary outcome using a logistic regression analysis. Finally, we derived a score (the Florence Haemoptysis Score, FLHASc) giving a proportional weight to each variable according to the Odds Ratios (OR). We included 197 patients with a median age of 60 years. The first radiological study was a plain chest X-ray in 128 patients (65%). For 33 (17%) patients, a chest computer tomography (CT scan) was the first radiological study. The most common diagnosis was lung malignancy (19% of cases). The diagnosis remained undetermined in one-third of patients. The primary outcome was met by 11.2% of the study population. Systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg (OR 9.7), a history of malignancy (OR 3), the expectoration of pure blood (OR 2.8), and more than 2 episodes of haemoptysis in the prior 24 h (OR 2.5) are found as independent predictors of the primary outcome. The FLHASc ranges from 0 to 6 with a prognostic accuracy of 78% (IC 95%, 68-88%). The primary outcome incidence is 2.4% (IC 95%, 0.2-8.2%) in patients with a FLHASc equal to zero (n = 85, 43%) versus 13.4% (IC 95% 7.8-21.1%) in patients with a FLHASc > 0 (p < 0.01). Among patients with a FLHASc equal to zero, a negative chest X-ray study identifies patients who may be safely discharged. Patients who presented to the ED with haemoptysis experience a heterogeneous management. We derive a simple clinical prognostic score that may rationalize their diagnostic workup.
我们分析了在一家意大利教学医院就诊的咯血患者的临床特征和诊断检查结果,以便得出一种易于使用的临床评分,以指导急诊科(ED)的风险分层和初步管理。我们回顾性分析了 1 年来连续咯血患者的临床记录。最初登记了一组预定变量,包括人口统计学数据、生命体征、咳出物类型(纯血与带血痰)、合并症以及诊断性检查和治疗。主要结局是以下任何一种的综合结果:任何原因导致的死亡、有创或无创通气、重症监护病房(ICU)入院、输血或有创止血治疗。我们使用逻辑回归分析研究了预定临床变量与主要结局之间的关联。最后,我们根据优势比(OR)为每个变量赋予相应的权重,得出了一个评分(佛罗伦萨咯血评分,FLHASc)。我们纳入了 197 名中位年龄为 60 岁的患者。128 名患者(65%)的首次放射学检查是胸部平片。33 名患者(17%)的首次放射学检查是胸部计算机断层扫描(CT 扫描)。最常见的诊断是肺癌(19%)。三分之一的患者仍未明确诊断。研究人群中有 11.2%达到了主要结局。收缩压<100mmHg(OR 9.7)、恶性肿瘤病史(OR 3)、纯血样咳痰(OR 2.8)和 24 小时内咯血发作超过 2 次(OR 2.5)是主要结局的独立预测因素。FLHASc 范围为 0 至 6,其预后准确性为 78%(95%可信区间,68-88%)。在 FLHASc 等于 0 的患者中,主要结局的发生率为 2.4%(95%可信区间,0.2-8.2%)(n=85,43%),而在 FLHASc>0 的患者中,发生率为 13.4%(95%可信区间,7.8-21.1%)(p<0.01)。在 FLHASc 等于 0 的患者中,阴性胸部 X 线检查可识别出可安全出院的患者。以咯血就诊于急诊科的患者接受了不同的治疗。我们得出了一种简单的临床预后评分,可以使其诊断检查更加合理化。