Heart Center, Tianjin Third Central Hospital, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center of Public Health Ministry, Tianjin, China (mainland).
Department of Emergency Medicine, Tianjin Third Central Hospital, Tianjin Institute of Hepatobiliary Disease, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center of Public Health Ministry, Tianjin, China (mainland).
Med Sci Monit. 2017 Oct 10;23:4847-4854. doi: 10.12659/msm.904740.
BACKGROUND This study was designed as an external evaluation of potentially relevant models for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR). MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty AMI adults that met criteria were retrospectively analyzed from January 2009 to January 2015. Six possible models - ENCOURAGE, SAVE, ECPR, GRACE, SHOCK, and a simplified risk chart - were identified by literature review and model scores calculated based on original data. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, commonly used in intensive care units, served as controls. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to compare the models' discriminative power for predicting survival to discharge. RESULTS The ECPR model showed the best discriminative performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.893 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.733-1.530, p=0.006); the cutoff was 12.5 points, with 66.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The "clinical" SHOCK model (including infarct site) showed weaker but still good discriminative power, with an AUC of 0.804 (95% CI, 0.580-1.027, p=0.035); the cutoff was 45.5 points, with 83.3% sensitivity and 71.4% specificity. The remaining models did not show significant discriminative power for predicting survival to discharge. Risk stratifications indicated that a statistically significant difference was observed in the distribution of patients into the ECPR group with different prognoses when stratified by its cutoff (p=0.003), while a trend of significant difference was shown when applied to the SHOCK model (p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS The ECPR and SHOCK models possess important abilities to predict intrahospital outcomes of AMI patients treated with E-CPR.
本研究旨在对体外心肺复苏(E-CPR)治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)的潜在相关模型进行外部评估。
回顾性分析 2009 年 1 月至 2015 年 1 月符合标准的 20 例 AMI 成年患者。通过文献回顾和基于原始数据计算的模型评分,确定了 6 个可能的模型,即 ENCOURAGE、SAVE、ECPR、GRACE、SHOCK 和简化风险图表。急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分和序贯器官衰竭评估是重症监护病房中常用的指标。采用受试者工作特征曲线比较模型对预测出院生存率的判别能力。
ECPR 模型显示出最佳的判别性能,曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.893(95%置信区间[CI],0.733-1.530,p=0.006);截断值为 12.5 分,敏感性为 66.7%,特异性为 100%。包含梗死部位的“临床”SHOCK 模型显示出较弱但仍具有良好的判别能力,AUC 为 0.804(95%CI,0.580-1.027,p=0.035);截断值为 45.5 分,敏感性为 83.3%,特异性为 71.4%。其余模型对预测出院生存率均无显著判别能力。风险分层表明,当根据 ECPR 模型的截断值将患者分层为不同预后的 ECPR 组时,患者的分布存在统计学显著差异(p=0.003),而当应用于 SHOCK 模型时,存在显著差异的趋势(p=0.05)。
ECPR 和 SHOCK 模型具有预测 E-CPR 治疗 AMI 患者院内结局的重要能力。