Suppr超能文献

对用于预测接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者院内死亡率的四种既定风险评分的比较分析。

Comparative analysis of four established risk scores for prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

作者信息

Kumar Rajesh, Ahmed Iftikhar, Rai Lajpat, Khowaja Sanam, Hashim Muhammad, Huma Zille, Sial Jawaid Akbar, Saghir Tahir, Qamar Nadeem, Karim Musa

机构信息

National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) Karachi, Pakistan.

National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) Hyderabad, Pakistan.

出版信息

Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2022 Dec 15;12(6):298-306. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to compare the predictive power of Shock Index (SI), TIMI Risk Index (TRI), LASH Score, and ACEF Score for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in a contemporary cohort of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at a tertiary care cardiac center of a developing country.

METHODS

Consecutive patients diagnosed with STEMI and undergoing primary PCI were included in this study. SI, TRI, LASH, and ACEF were computed and their predictive power was assessed as the area under the curve (AUC) on the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis for in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

We included 977 patients, 780 (79.8%) of which were male, and the mean age was 55.6 ± 11.5 years. The in-hospital mortality rate was 4.3% (42). AUC for TRI was 0.669 (optimal cutoff: ≥17.5, sensitivity: 76.2%, specificity: 45.6%). AUC for SI was 0.595 (optimal cutoff: ≥0.9, sensitivity: 21.4%, specificity: 89.8%). AUC for LASH score was 0.745 (optimal cutoff: ≥0, sensitivity: 76.2%, specificity: 66.9%). AUC for the ACEF score was 0.786 (optimal cutoff: ≥1.66, sensitivity: 71.4%, specificity: 73.5%).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, ACEF showed sufficiently high predictive power with good sensitivity and specificity compared to other three scores. These simplified indices based on readily available hemodynamic parameters can be reliable alternatives to the computational complex scoring systems for the risk stratification of STEMI patients.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较休克指数(SI)、心肌梗死溶栓治疗(TIMI)风险指数(TRI)、LASH评分和ACEF评分在一个发展中国家三级心脏护理中心接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的当代ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者队列中预测院内死亡的能力。

方法

本研究纳入了连续诊断为STEMI并接受直接PCI的患者。计算SI、TRI、LASH和ACEF,并通过对院内死亡的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析评估其预测能力,以曲线下面积(AUC)表示。

结果

我们纳入了977例患者,其中780例(79.8%)为男性,平均年龄为55.6±11.5岁。院内死亡率为4.3%(42例)。TRI的AUC为0.669(最佳截断值:≥17.5,敏感性:76.2%,特异性:45.6%)。SI的AUC为0.595(最佳截断值:≥0.9,敏感性:21.4%,特异性:89.8%)。LASH评分的AUC为0.745(最佳截断值:≥0,敏感性:76.2%,特异性:66.9%)。ACEF评分的AUC为0.786(最佳截断值:≥1.66,敏感性:71.4%,特异性:73.5%)。

结论

总之,与其他三个评分相比,ACEF显示出足够高的预测能力,具有良好敏感性和特异性。这些基于易于获得的血流动力学参数的简化指数可作为STEMI患者风险分层中计算复杂的评分系统的可靠替代方法。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

7

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