Mosterd A, Deckers J W, Hoes A W, Nederpel A, Smeets A, Linker D T, Grobbee D E
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Rotterdam Dijkzigi, The Netherlands.
Eur J Epidemiol. 1997 Jul;13(5):491-502. doi: 10.1023/a:1007383914444.
Several scores based on symptoms and signs have been developed to assess the presence of heart failure. The goal of this study was to compare six heart failure scores in non-hospitalised subjects and to determine their usefulness in population based research. The scores were applied to 54 participants of a population based study. All underwent a complete medical examination, including chest X-ray, electrocardiography and Doppler echocardiography. Using all information available, a cardiologist, unaware of the results of the scores, clinically classified participants as having no, possible or definite heart failure. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and receiver operating characteristics were calculated, using the cardiologist's assessment as a gold standard. The cardiologist judged definite or possible heart failure to be present in 17 persons. All scores had a high sensitivity for the detection of definite heart failure, whereas the study of men born in 1913 and Walma's score had the highest sensitivity for the combination of possible and definite heart failure. Gheorgiade's and the Boston score had the highest positive predictive values. In conclusion, five of the six scores we studied are broadly similar in the detection of heart failure. The men born in 1913 score relies heavily on the assessment of dyspnea, resulting in a relatively large number of false positives. Although the scores are useful in detecting manifest heart failure, objective measurements of cardiac function appear necessary to reduce the false positive rate and accurately detect early stages of heart failure.
已经开发了几种基于症状和体征的评分系统来评估心力衰竭的存在情况。本研究的目的是比较六种心力衰竭评分系统在非住院受试者中的表现,并确定它们在基于人群的研究中的实用性。这些评分系统应用于一项基于人群研究的54名参与者。所有参与者都接受了全面的医学检查,包括胸部X光、心电图和多普勒超声心动图检查。利用所有可得信息,一位不知晓评分结果的心脏病专家根据临床情况将参与者分类为无心力衰竭、可能有心力衰竭或确诊有心力衰竭。以心脏病专家的评估作为金标准,计算了敏感性、特异性、预测值和受试者工作特征曲线。心脏病专家判定17人确诊或可能患有心力衰竭。所有评分系统对确诊心力衰竭的检测都具有较高的敏感性,而1913年出生男性评分系统和瓦尔马评分系统对可能和确诊心力衰竭合并情况的检测敏感性最高。乔治亚德评分系统和波士顿评分系统具有最高的阳性预测值。总之,我们研究的六种评分系统中有五种在心力衰竭检测方面大致相似。1913年出生男性评分系统严重依赖于对呼吸困难的评估,导致假阳性数量相对较多。尽管这些评分系统在检测明显心力衰竭方面有用,但心脏功能的客观测量对于降低假阳性率和准确检测心力衰竭早期阶段似乎是必要的。