Suppr超能文献

使用欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统(Euroscore)和欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统二代(Euroscore II)对冠状动脉疾病或瓣膜疾病患者进行围手术期风险评估。

Perioperative risk assessment with Euroscore and Euroscore II in patients with coronary artery or valvular disease.

作者信息

Czub Paweł, Cacko Andrzej, Gawałko Monika, Tataj Emanuel, Poliński Jakub, Pawlik Kacper, Cichoń Romuald, Hendzel Piotr

机构信息

Department of Cardiac Surgery.

Department of Medical Informatics and Telemedicine.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(50):e13572. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013572.

Abstract

Nowadays, both the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) logistic (ESL) and EuroSCORE II (ESII) models are used worldwide in predicting in-hospital mortality after cardiac operation. However, these scales are based on different populations and represent different medical approaches. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the ESL and the ESII risk scores in predicting in-hospital death and prolonged hospitalization in intensive care unit (ICU) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), aortic valve replacement (AVR), and mitral valve replacement (MVR) by comparison of an estimated risk and a real-life observation at a reference cardiac surgery unit.This retrospective study was based on medical records of patients who underwent a CABG, AVR, or MVR at a reference cardiac surgery unit in a 2-year period. Primary endpoint was defined as in-hospital death. Secondary endpoint was a prolonged hospitalization at the ICU, defined as longer than 3 days.The study encompassed 586 patients [114 (23.1%) female, mean age 65.8 ± 10.5 years], including 493 patients undergoing CABG, 66 patients undergoing AVR, and 27 patients undergoing MVR. The ESL and ESII risk scores were higher in MVR subgroup (31.7% ± 30.5% and 15.3% ± 19.4%) and AVR subgroup (9.7% ± 11.6% and 3.2% ± 4.2%) than in CABG subgroup (6.9% ± 10.4% and 2.5% ± 4.1%; P < .001). Subgroups of patients were significantly different in terms of clinical, biochemical, and echocardiography factors. Primary endpoint occurred in 36 (6.1%) patients: 21 (4.3%), 7 (10.6%), and 8 (29.7%) in CABG, AVR, and MVR subgroups, respectively. The ESII underestimated the risk of mortality. Secondary endpoint occurred in 210 (35.8%) patients: 172 (34.9%), 22 (33.4%), and 16 (59.3%) in CABG, AVR, and MVR subgroups, respectively.In the study, the perioperative risk estimated with the ESL and the ESII risk scores was compared with a real-life outcome among over 500 patients. Regardless of the type of surgery, result in the ESL was better correlated with the risk of in-hospital death.

摘要

如今,欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统(EuroSCORE)逻辑模型(ESL)和EuroSCORE II(ESII)模型在全球范围内都被用于预测心脏手术后的住院死亡率。然而,这些评分系统基于不同的人群,代表了不同的医学方法。本研究的目的是通过比较一家参考心脏外科中心的估计风险和实际观察结果,评估ESL和ESII风险评分在预测冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)、主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)和二尖瓣置换术(MVR)后住院死亡和重症监护病房(ICU)延长住院时间方面的有效性。

这项回顾性研究基于一家参考心脏外科中心在两年内接受CABG、AVR或MVR的患者的病历。主要终点定义为住院死亡。次要终点是ICU延长住院时间,定义为超过3天。

该研究纳入了586例患者[114例(23.1%)为女性,平均年龄65.8±10.5岁],其中包括493例行CABG的患者、66例行AVR的患者和27例行MVR的患者。MVR亚组(31.7%±30.5%和15.3%±19.4%)和AVR亚组(9.7%±11.6%和3.2%±4.2%)的ESL和ESII风险评分高于CABG亚组(6.9%±10.4%和2.5%±4.1%;P<0.001)。患者亚组在临床、生化和超声心动图因素方面存在显著差异。主要终点发生在36例(6.1%)患者中:CABG、AVR和MVR亚组分别为21例(4.3%)、7例(10.6%)和8例(29.7%)。ESII低估了死亡风险。次要终点发生在210例(35.8%)患者中:CABG、AVR和MVR亚组分别为172例(34.9%)、22例(33.4%)和16例(59.3%)。

在该研究中,将ESL和ESII风险评分估计的围手术期风险与500多名患者的实际结果进行了比较。无论手术类型如何,ESL的结果与住院死亡风险的相关性更好。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de3a/6320047/94ab906688a1/medi-97-e13572-g001.jpg

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