Wen Zixin, Li Xiuqin, Zhang Yanxia, Shi Jie, Zhang Juan, Zheng Yingying, Lin Ying, Jian Tianzi, Jian Xiangdong, Kan Baotian, Luan Xiaorong
School of Nursing and Rehabilitation, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Department of Geriatric Medicine, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Dec 2;9:1072467. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1072467. eCollection 2022.
Patients with acute toxic hemoperfusion are prone to deep vein thrombosis. However, there is no risk assessment model for thrombosis in patients with acute toxic hemoperfusion. Therefore, we compared three commonly used risk assessment models for deep vein thrombosis to determine the model most suitable for assessment of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute toxic hemoperfusion.
Caprini, Autar, and Padua thrombosis risk assessment models were used to assess the risk of deep vein thrombosis in patients with acute poisoning and hemoperfusion admitted to a grade A hospital in Shandong province from October 2017 to February 2019. The predictive values of the three models were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
The risk assessment model scores of Caprini, Autar, and Padua were 7.55 ± 1.76, 8.63 ± 2.36, and 3.92 ± 0.55, respectively. The Caprini risk assessment model was significantly different ( < 0.05) in high-risk patients in the thrombus and non-thrombotic groups; the difference between the other two models was not significant ( > 0.05). The areas under the ROC curve of the Caprini, Autar, and Padua risk assessment models were 0.673, 0.585, and 0.535, respectively. The difference in areas under the ROC curve between the Caprini risk assessment model and the Autar risk assessment model as well as the Padua risk assessment model was significant ( < 0.05), but the areas under the ROC curve of the Autar risk assessment model and the Padua risk assessment model were not statistically significant ( > 0.05). The Caprini risk assessment model had a sensitivity of 91.9%, specificity of 33.1%, and a Youden index of 0.249. The sensitivity and specificity of Autar's risk assessment model were 37.0 and 77.2%, respectively, and the Youden index was 0.141. The Padua risk assessment model had a sensitivity of 91.3%, specificity of 15.0%, and a Youden index of 0.063.
The three thrombosis risk assessment models were not suitable for patients with acute poisoning and hemoperfusion.
急性中毒血液灌流患者易发生深静脉血栓形成。然而，目前尚无针对急性中毒血液灌流患者血栓形成的风险评估模型。因此，我们比较了三种常用的深静脉血栓形成风险评估模型，以确定最适合评估急性中毒血液灌流患者深静脉血栓形成的模型。
采用Caprini、Autar和Padua血栓形成风险评估模型，对2017年10月至2019年2月山东省某甲级医院收治的急性中毒并接受血液灌流的患者进行深静脉血栓形成风险评估。采用受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线分析比较三种模型的预测价值。
Caprini、Autar和Padua风险评估模型的评分分别为7.55±1.76、8.63±2.36和3.92±0.55。Caprini风险评估模型在血栓形成组和非血栓形成组的高危患者中差异有统计学意义（<0.05）；其他两种模型之间的差异无统计学意义（>0.05）。Caprini、Autar和Padua风险评估模型的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.673、0.585和0.535。Caprini风险评估模型与Autar风险评估模型以及Padua风险评估模型的ROC曲线下面积差异有统计学意义（<0.05），但Autar风险评估模型与Padua风险评估模型的ROC曲线下面积差异无统计学意义（>0.05）。Caprini风险评估模型的灵敏度为91.9%，特异度为33.1%，约登指数为0.249。Autar风险评估模型的灵敏度和特异度分别为37.0%和77.2%，约登指数为0.141。Padua风险评估模型的灵敏度为91.3%，特异度为15.0%，约登指数为0.063。
三种血栓形成风险评估模型均不适用于急性中毒并接受血液灌流的患者。
