Suppr超能文献

比较血流动力学稳定的非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者就诊于急诊科的风险评分和休克指数。

Comparison of risk scores and shock index in hemodynamically stable patients presenting to the emergency department with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan.

Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul;31(7):781-785. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001422.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Risk assessment in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is not well validated and remains unclear in hemodynamically stable patients at emergency department admission. We compared the prognostic value of risk-scoring systems for predicting adverse outcomes in patients with nonvariceal UGIB and normotension.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

A single-center prospective observational study was carried out. Patients with consecutive nonvariceal UGIB, presenting with normotension (systolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg) to the emergency department, were included. We compared the areas under the curves (AUC) of Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), the pre-endoscopy Rockall score, AIMS65, the shock index, and the modified shock index with respect to adverse outcomes defined as embolization, surgery, ICU admission, rebleeding, and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 1233 patients were included. Adverse outcomes occurred in 165 (13.4%) patients; in-hospital mortality was 1.2%. AUC of the GBS for adverse outcome was higher than that of the shock index, but not significantly different (0.647 vs. 0.569, P=0.23). AUC values of the modified shock index, AIMS65, and the pre-endoscopy Rockall score were 0.565, 0.593, and 0.533, respectively. The cut-off value of the GBS (≥8) was associated with 85% sensitivity and 35% specificity for predicting adverse outcome.

CONCLUSION

Pre-existing risk scores have shown suboptimal predictive ability for adverse events in normotensive patients with nonvariceal UGIB. The GBS (≥8) might help to identify patients prone to adverse events; however, further studies with risk scores or new scores are needed because of the low accuracy of these scores.

摘要

目的

非静脉曲张性上消化道出血(UGIB)的风险评估尚未得到充分验证,在急诊科入院时血流动力学稳定的患者中仍不清楚。我们比较了风险评分系统在预测非静脉曲张性 UGIB 和血压正常患者不良预后方面的预测价值。

参与者和方法

进行了一项单中心前瞻性观察性研究。纳入了连续出现非静脉曲张性 UGIB 且血压正常(收缩压≥90mmHg)到急诊科就诊的患者。我们比较了格拉斯哥 Blatchford 评分(GBS)、内镜前 Rockall 评分、AIMS65、休克指数和改良休克指数的曲线下面积(AUC)与不良结局(定义为栓塞、手术、入住 ICU、再出血和住院死亡率)的关系。

结果

共纳入 1233 例患者。165 例(13.4%)患者发生不良结局;住院死亡率为 1.2%。GBS 预测不良结局的 AUC 高于休克指数,但无统计学差异(0.647 与 0.569,P=0.23)。改良休克指数、AIMS65 和内镜前 Rockall 评分的 AUC 值分别为 0.565、0.593 和 0.533。GBS(≥8)的截断值与预测不良结局的 85%敏感性和 35%特异性相关。

结论

在非静脉曲张性 UGIB 血压正常患者中,现有的风险评分对不良事件的预测能力不佳。GBS(≥8)可能有助于识别易发生不良事件的患者;然而,由于这些评分的准确性较低,需要进一步研究风险评分或新的评分。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验