Suppr超能文献

在临床上能够区分非出血性梗死和出血性中风吗?

Is it clinically possible to distinguish nonhemorrhagic infarct from hemorrhagic stroke?

作者信息

Besson G, Robert C, Hommel M, Perret J

机构信息

Department of Clinical and Biological Neurosciences, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, France.

出版信息

Stroke. 1995 Jul;26(7):1205-9. doi: 10.1161/01.str.26.7.1205.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Diagnosis of the nonhemorrhagic ischemic type of stroke by analysis of patients' clinical features is considered unreliable because no clinical feature is specific. The diagnosis is so difficult to establish that we cannot hope to use the same method to make a reliable diagnosis in all stroke cases. In this study, we propose a simple scoring system with a positive predictive value of close to 100% to distinguish nonhemorrhagic infarct from hemorrhagic stroke. This scoring is available for all physicians in bedside diagnosis even if this score can be applied to a subgroup of patients.

METHODS

Twenty-six clinical variables that might potentially distinguish cerebral hemorrhage from infarction were recorded in patients consecutively admitted to our stroke unit for stroke lasting more than 24 hours with at least unilateral motor weakness affecting face and/or arm and/or leg (internal validity study). Patients previously receiving anticoagulant therapy were excluded. We used CT scan as the gold standard. We used multivariate logistic regression to establish a clinical score from which we derived the classification rule. This rule was validated with data from the next 200 consecutive patients hospitalized in the stroke unit (external validity study).

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-eight patients were enrolled in the internal study. The obtained score was (2 x alcohol consumption) + (1.5 x plantar response) + (3 x headache) + (3 x history of hypertension)--(5 x history of transient neurological deficit)--(2 x peripheral arterial disease)--(1.5 x history of hyperlipidemia)--(2.5 x atrial fibrillation on admission). All patients with a score less than 1 (n = 123) had a nonhemorrhagic infarct (ie, 40% of the 305 patients with a nonhemorrhagic infarct). No threshold was found to diagnose cerebral hemorrhage with a sufficiently high positive predictive value. Among the 200 patients enrolled in the external validity study, 72 patients with a score below 1 had a nonhemorrhagic infarct (ie, 43% of patients with a nonhemorrhagic infarct).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosis of nonhemorrhagic infarct can be made in 36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 43) of patients with a high level of accuracy (100% in the external validity study, which gives a 95% CI of 93 to 100). Thus, 43% (95% CI, 36 to 50) of patients with a nonhemorrhagic infarct could receive a bedside diagnosis. The score is simple and can be calculated from information available to all physicians.

摘要

背景与目的

通过分析患者临床特征来诊断非出血性缺血性卒中被认为不可靠,因为没有任何临床特征具有特异性。该诊断很难确立,以至于我们不能指望用相同的方法对所有卒中病例做出可靠诊断。在本研究中,我们提出一种简单的评分系统,其阳性预测值接近100%,用于区分非出血性梗死与出血性卒中。即使该评分仅适用于部分患者亚组,但所有医生在床旁诊断时均可使用。

方法

连续纳入入住我们卒中单元、卒中持续时间超过24小时、至少有单侧面部和/或手臂和/或腿部运动无力的患者(内部效度研究),记录26个可能区分脑出血与梗死的临床变量。排除既往接受抗凝治疗的患者。我们将CT扫描作为金标准。采用多因素逻辑回归建立临床评分,并从中推导分类规则。该规则用卒中单元接下来连续收治的200例患者的数据进行验证(外部效度研究)。

结果

内部研究纳入368例患者。获得的评分是(饮酒量×2)+(巴宾斯基征×1.5)+(头痛×3)+(高血压病史×3) - (短暂性神经功能缺损病史×5) - (外周动脉疾病×2) - (高脂血症病史×1.5) - (入院时房颤×2.5)。所有评分小于1的患者(n = 123)均为非出血性梗死(即305例非出血性梗死患者中的40%)。未发现具有足够高阳性预测值来诊断脑出血的阈值。在外部效度研究纳入的200例患者中,72例评分低于1的患者为非出血性梗死(即非出血性梗死患者中的43%)。

结论

36%(95%置信区间[CI],29至43)的患者能够以较高的准确性(外部效度研究中为100%,95%CI为93至100)诊断非出血性梗死。因此,43%(95%CI,36至50)的非出血性梗死患者可以接受床旁诊断。该评分简单,可根据所有医生都能获取的信息进行计算。

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