Suppr超能文献

[YEARS算法与简化Wells评分联合年龄校正D-二聚体算法在疑似急性肺栓塞患者评估中的价值比较]

[Comparison of the values of the YEARS algorithm and the simplified Wells combined with age-adjusted D-dimer algorithm in the evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism ].

出版信息

Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2020 Dec 12;43(12):1055-1060. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112147-20200519-00613.

Abstract

To compare the values of the YEARS algorithm and the simplified Wells combined with age-adjusted D-dimer (sWells-Age) algorithm in the evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (APE). Patients with suspected APE receiving CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were enrolled from 2016 to 2017. With CTPA results as the gold standard, we evaluated and compared the performance of the two algorithms in the whole population and in symptom-onset site (in-hospital, out-of-hospital) subgroups. Among the 285 patients included, APE was confirmed by CTPA in 80 patients (28.1%). The two algorithms had a high level of diagnostic agreement (κ=0.855, <0.05). The evaluated performance of the YEARS algorithm and the sWells-Age algorithm was as follows: 21.8% and 17.2% for the efficiencies; 1.6% and 0.0% for the failure rates; 29.8% and 23.9% for the specificities(<0.05); 98.8% and 100.0% for the sensitivities. The efficiencies and the specificities of the two algorithms differed in the subgroups divided by symptom-onset sites (in-hospital, out-of-hospital). For the patients with symptoms-onset outside the hospital, the YEARS algorithm and the sWells-Age algorithm showed efficiencies of 33.0% and 26.9%, respectively, and specificities of 44.7% and 37.1%, respectively, (<0.05).For the patients with symptoms-onset in hospital, the YEARS algorithm and the sWells-Age algorithm showed efficiencies of 1.9% and 0.0%, respectively, and specificities of 2.7% and 0.0%, respectively. The YEARS algorithm and the sWells-Age algorithm had a good diagnostic agreement and low failure rates and both could safely rule out APE. More patients with suspected APE could be safely excluded by the YEARS algorithm than the sWells-Age algorithm, especially in those suspected APE patients with out-of-hospital symptom-onset. However, both two algorithms were not applicable to suspected APE patients with in-hospital symptom-onset.

摘要

比较 YEARS 算法和简化 Wells 评分结合年龄校正 D-二聚体(sWells-Age)算法在疑似急性肺栓塞(APE)患者评估中的价值。2016 年至 2017 年纳入接受 CT 肺动脉造影(CTPA)的疑似 APE 患者。以 CTPA 结果作为金标准,我们评估并比较了两种算法在总体人群以及症状发作部位(院内、院外)亚组中的性能。在纳入的 285 例患者中,80 例(28.1%)经 CTPA 确诊为 APE。两种算法具有较高的诊断一致性(κ=0.855,P<0.05)。YEARS 算法和 sWells-Age 算法的评估性能如下:效率分别为 21.8%和 17.2%;失败率分别为 1.6%和 0.0%;特异性分别为 29.8%和 23.9%(P<0.05);敏感性分别为 98.8%和 100.0%。两种算法的效率和特异性在按症状发作部位(院内、院外)划分的亚组中有所不同。对于院外症状发作的患者,YEARS 算法和 sWells-Age 算法的效率分别为 33.0%和 26.9%,特异性分别为 44.7%和 37.1%(P<0.05)。对于院内症状发作的患者,YEARS 算法和 sWells-Age 算法的效率分别为 1.9%和 0.0%,特异性分别为 2.7%和 0.0%。YEARS 算法和 sWells-Age 算法具有良好的诊断一致性和低失败率,两者均能安全地排除 APE。与 sWells-Age 算法相比,YEARS 算法能安全排除更多疑似 APE 患者,尤其是那些院外症状发作的疑似 APE 患者。然而,两种算法均不适用于院内症状发作的疑似 APE 患者。

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