Suppr超能文献

院内心肺复苏后生存失败的预测:两种预测工具的比较

Prediction of failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: comparison of two predictive instruments.

作者信息

O'Keeffe S, Ebell M H

机构信息

Department of Geriatric Medicine, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, UK.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 1994 Jul;28(1):21-5. doi: 10.1016/0300-9572(94)90050-7.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare two clinical predictive rules, the pre-arrest-morbidity (PAM) index and the prognosis-after-resuscitation (PAR) score, which predict failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The study population consisted of 274 consecutive adult patients who underwent CPR at University College Hospital in Galway, Ireland over a 2-year period. The PAM and PAR scores were calculated from the most recent data available for each variable prior to cardiac arrest. Performance of the predictive scores was compared using Student's t-test, Pearson chi-square, Fisher's exact test, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves where appropriate. The PAM index identified 23 patients with a score > 4, while the PAR score identified 59 patients with a score > 5, none of whom survived. The sensitivity of the PAR score for the prediction of failure to survive was 23.7%, while that of the PAM index was 9.2%; neither index incorrectly identified a patient as a non-survivor who eventually survived. The PAR score also had a greater area under the ROC curve, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). In summary, the PAR score performed better than the PAM index in the identification of patients who are unlikely to survive following CPR. Although further confirmation is necessary, it may provide useful prognostic information to physicians and patients involved with decisions about do-not-resuscitate orders.

摘要

本研究的目的是比较两种临床预测规则,即心脏骤停前发病率(PAM)指数和复苏后预后(PAR)评分,这两种规则用于预测院内心肺复苏(CPR)后患者的生存失败情况。研究人群包括在爱尔兰戈尔韦大学学院医院连续2年接受心肺复苏的274例成年患者。PAM和PAR评分根据心脏骤停前各变量的最新可用数据计算得出。在适当情况下,使用学生t检验、Pearson卡方检验、Fisher精确检验和受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线比较预测评分的性能。PAM指数识别出23例评分>4的患者,而PAR评分识别出59例评分>5的患者,这些患者均未存活。PAR评分预测生存失败的敏感性为23.7%,而PAM指数为9.2%;两个指数均未将最终存活的患者错误识别为非存活者。PAR评分在ROC曲线下的面积也更大,尽管这种差异无统计学意义(P = 0.07)。总之,在识别心肺复苏后不太可能存活的患者方面,PAR评分比PAM指数表现更好。尽管需要进一步证实,但它可能为参与决定不进行心肺复苏医嘱的医生和患者提供有用的预后信息。

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