Department of Hematology, The Affiliated Huaian No.1 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, People's Republic of China.
Key Laboratory of Hematology, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Hematology. 2021 Dec;26(1):769-774. doi: 10.1080/16078454.2021.1978753.
To explore the relationship between platelet count and bleeding score in immune thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP) and compare the clinical practicability of two bleeding grading systems with adult patients with ITP.
A total of 204 patients were retrospectively analyzed with the ITP bleeding scale (IBLS) and the ITP bleeding assessment tool (version 2016) (ITP-2016). The correlation between the two bleeding score systems and the relations among the platelet counts were respectively analyzed.
(1) There is a linear relationship between platelet count and bleeding score, no matter which scoring system it is based on (rs = -0.429, < 0.001; rs = -0.331, < 0.001, the analysis of the number of sites of Grade 1/2 bleeding were done; and rs = -0.466, < 0.05, the analysis between platelet count and bleeding score by ITP-2016 respectively). (2) Platelet count and bleeding scores are negatively correlated in those with extremely low platelet counts ( < 1010/L). The number of sites of Grade 2 bleeding and the ITP-2016 scores are negatively correlated with platelet counts (rs = -0.15 and rs = -0.244, < 0.05, respectively). Significantly, there is no correlation between the platelet count and bleeding scores when the platelet count is more than 1010/L. (3) It takes less time to score with ITP-2016 than IBLS ( = -3.825, < 0.001).
There is good responsiveness, strong assessment consistency, close correlation between ITP-2016 and IBLS. ITP-2016 takes less time-consuming in clinical application. It can be used as an effective tool of condition judgement, risk assessment and efficacy evaluation of patients with ITP.
探讨血小板计数与免疫性血小板减少性紫癜（ITP）出血评分的关系，并比较两种出血分级系统在成人 ITP 患者中的临床实用性。
回顾性分析 204 例 ITP 患者，采用 ITP 出血评分（IBLS）和 ITP 出血评估工具（2016 年版）（ITP-2016）进行评估。分别分析两种出血评分系统与血小板计数的相关性，以及血小板计数与各部位出血评分的关系。
（1）无论采用哪种评分系统（分析 1/2 级出血部位的 rs= -0.429， < 0.001；rs= -0.331， < 0.001），血小板计数与出血评分均呈线性关系。（2）血小板计数与出血评分呈负相关，极低血小板计数（ < 1010/L）者尤其明显。2 级出血部位数和 ITP-2016 评分与血小板计数呈负相关（rs= -0.15 和 rs= -0.244， < 0.05）。显著的是，血小板计数大于 1010/L 时，血小板计数与出血评分无相关性。（3）ITP-2016 评分比 IBLS 耗时更少（ = -3.825， < 0.001）。
ITP-2016 与 IBLS 具有良好的反应性、较强的评估一致性和密切相关性。ITP-2016 在临床应用中耗时更少，可作为判断 ITP 患者病情、评估风险和疗效的有效工具。
