Suppr超能文献

LODS、OASIS 和 SAPS II 预测 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死重症监护患者院内死亡率的有效性。

Effectiveness of LODS, OASIS, and SAPS II to predict in-hospital mortality for intensive care patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, 74 Linjiang Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, 400010, China.

Department of Critical Care Medicine, Chengdu Second People's Hospital, Chengdu, China.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2021 Dec 13;11(1):23887. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03397-3.

Abstract

The relationship between three scoring systems (LODS, OASIS, and SAPS II) and in-hospital mortality of intensive care patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is currently inconclusive. The baseline data, LODS score, OASIS score, SAPS II score, and in-hospital prognosis of intensive care patients with STEMI were retrieved from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to reduce bias. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) were drawn for the three scoring systems, and comparisons between the areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were conducted. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to determine the net benefits of the three scoring systems. LODS and SAPS II were independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. For the study cohort, the AUCs of LODS, OASIS, SAPS II were 0.867, 0.827, and 0.894; after PSM, the AUCs of LODS, OASIS, SAPS II were 0.877, 0.821, and 0.881. A stratified analysis of the patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention/coronary artery bypass grafting (PCI/CABG) or not was conducted. In the PCI/CABG group, the AUCs of LODS, OASIS, SAPS II were 0.853, 0.825, and 0.867, while in the non-PCI/CABG group, the AUCs of LODS, OASIS, SAPS II were 0.857, 0.804, and 0.897. The results of the Z test suggest that the predictive value of LODS and SAPS II was not statistically different, but both were higher than OASIS. According to the DCA, the net clinical benefit of LODS was the greatest. LODS and SAPS II have excellent predictive value, and in most cases, both were higher than OASIS. With a more concise composition and greater clinical benefit, LODS may be a better predictor of in-hospital mortality for intensive care patients with STEMI.

摘要

目前,关于三个评分系统(LODS、OASIS 和 SAPS II)与 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)重症监护患者院内死亡率之间的关系尚无定论。本研究从医疗信息重症监护 IV 数据库中提取了 STEMI 重症监护患者的基线数据、LODS 评分、OASIS 评分、SAPS II 评分和院内预后。采用倾向评分匹配分析来减少偏倚。绘制了三个评分系统的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC),并比较了 ROC 曲线下面积(AUC)。进行决策曲线分析(DCA)以确定三个评分系统的净获益。LODS 和 SAPS II 是院内死亡率的独立危险因素。对于研究队列,LODS、OASIS、SAPS II 的 AUC 分别为 0.867、0.827 和 0.894;经 PSM 后,LODS、OASIS、SAPS II 的 AUC 分别为 0.877、0.821 和 0.881。对接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗/冠状动脉旁路移植术(PCI/CABG)或未接受 PCI/CABG 的患者进行分层分析。在 PCI/CABG 组中,LODS、OASIS、SAPS II 的 AUC 分别为 0.853、0.825 和 0.867,而非 PCI/CABG 组中,LODS、OASIS、SAPS II 的 AUC 分别为 0.857、0.804 和 0.897。Z 检验结果表明,LODS 和 SAPS II 的预测价值无统计学差异,但均高于 OASIS。根据 DCA,LODS 的净临床获益最大。LODS 和 SAPS II 具有出色的预测价值,在大多数情况下,两者均高于 OASIS。LODS 组成更简洁,临床获益更大,可能是 STEMI 重症监护患者院内死亡率的更好预测指标。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9737/8668882/98061e47f03f/41598_2021_3397_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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