Suppr超能文献

入住重症烧伤监护病房(ICBU)的烧伤患者死亡率预测评分的分析与准确性。

The analysis and accuracy of mortality prediction scores in burn patients admitted to the intensive care burn unit (ICBU).

作者信息

Hassan Zakariya, Burhamah Waleed, Alabdulmuhsen Shahad, Al Saffar Abdullah, Oroszlányová Melinda, Aziz Hasan

机构信息

AlBabtain Center for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Sabah Health Region, Kuwait.

College of Engineering and Technology, American University of the Middle East, Kuwait.

出版信息

Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021 Apr 2;65:102249. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102249. eCollection 2021 May.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To date, multiple scoring systems have been utilised in predicting outcomes in burn patients. The aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of three established scoring systems used for burn patients admitted to the intensive care unit and to determine the risk factors associated with poor outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 211 patients who were admitted to the ICBU in a tertiary care centre in Kuwait from January 2017 to December 2019 were analysed retrospectively. Data were collected using patient medical records. The FLAMES, BOBI and revised Baux scores were calculated, and the survivor and non-survivor scores of patients were analysed to determine the sensitivity, specificity and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) of the different scoring modalities.

RESULTS

The majority of the analysed population were male patients (165/211) and the most common mechanism of burns was flame burns (166/211). Most of the patients admitted to the ICBU survived (188/211). Female gender was associated with a higher mortality rate, whilst inhalational injury and co-morbidities were not associated with a higher mortality rate. The revised Baux score had a sensitivity value of 96% and 90% specificity. The BOBI score had a sensitivity of 91% and 76% specificity. The FLAMES score had a sensitivity of 96% and the highest specificity of 99%. All 3 scores had AUC values exceeding 90%.

CONCLUSION

Statistically, FLAMES score had the highest accuracy of predicting outcomes in burn patients, however all three scores demonstrated acceptable predictive rates when it comes to practical application, permitting the use of either one of the studied scores with satisfactory prognostic outcomes.

摘要

背景

迄今为止,多种评分系统已被用于预测烧伤患者的预后。本研究的目的是确定用于重症监护病房收治的烧伤患者的三种既定评分系统的准确性,并确定与不良预后相关的危险因素。

方法

回顾性分析了2017年1月至2019年12月在科威特一家三级护理中心入住重症烧伤病房(ICBU)的211例患者。使用患者病历收集数据。计算FLAMES、BOBI和修订后的Baux评分,并分析患者的存活和非存活评分,以确定不同评分方式的敏感性、特异性和受试者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)。

结果

分析人群中的大多数为男性患者(165/211),最常见的烧伤机制是火焰烧伤(166/211)。入住ICBU的大多数患者存活(188/211)。女性性别与较高的死亡率相关,而吸入性损伤和合并症与较高的死亡率无关。修订后的Baux评分的敏感性值为96%,特异性为90%。BOBI评分的敏感性为91%,特异性为76%。FLAMES评分的敏感性为96%,特异性最高,为99%。所有三个评分的AUC值均超过90%。

结论

从统计学角度来看,FLAMES评分在预测烧伤患者预后方面具有最高的准确性,然而,在实际应用中,所有三个评分都显示出可接受的预测率,允许使用所研究的任何一个评分并获得令人满意的预后结果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5647/8065182/86072304fe70/gr1.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