目的探讨AIMS65评分在肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血(esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding,EGVB)患者住院死亡中的预测价值。方法回顾性纳入我院2016年1月至2020年12月诊治的378例肝硬化EGVB患者,根据住院期间生存情况分为存活...目的探讨AIMS65评分在肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血(esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding,EGVB)患者住院死亡中的预测价值。方法回顾性纳入我院2016年1月至2020年12月诊治的378例肝硬化EGVB患者,根据住院期间生存情况分为存活组345例(91.27%)和死亡组33例(8.73%)。通过电子病历系统收集患者入院时临床资料,采用多因素Logistic回归分析EGVB患者住院期间死亡的危险因素。采用ROC曲线分析AIMS65评分预测EGVB患者住院期间死亡的效能。结果单因素分析显示,死亡组中重度腹水、有肝性脑病的比例以及GBS评分、FRS评分、AIMS65评分均高于存活组(P<0.05),年龄、性别、高血压等与存活组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,GBS评分(OR=1.704,95%CI:1.069~2.717,P=0.026)、FRS评分(OR=1.758,95%CI:1.160~2.663,P=0.008)、AIMS65评分(OR=1.868,95%CI:1.228~2.842,P=0.002)是肝硬化EGVB患者住院期间死亡的危险因素。ROC曲线分析显示,AIMS65评分预测EGVB患者住院期间死亡的AUC为0.836(95%CI:0.781~0.891),敏感性为72.73%,特异性为82.03%。结论AIMS65评分升高是肝硬化EGVB患者住院期间死亡的危险因素,可预测该类人群短期死亡风险。展开更多
<strong>Objective</strong><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><strong>:</strong> To evaluate and compare the prognostic contribution of diffe...<strong>Objective</strong><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><strong>:</strong> To evaluate and compare the prognostic contribution of different UGIB prognostic scores. <b>Patients and Method</b>: Descriptive cross-sectional study with retrospective collection conducted from January 2014 to December 2019. Patients hospitalized in the Gastroenterology Department of Campus Teaching Hospital of Lome for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage were included. The analytical component of this study had consisted of an evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of different prognostic scores (GBS, mGBS, FRS, CRS, AIMS65) in predicting the occurrence of death and/or re-bleeding within 42 days. These different scores were compared using ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves. <b>Results</b>: We included 314 patients in our study. The male to female sex ratio was 2.48. Fibroscopy found non-related portal hypertension UGIB in 70.94% of the cases. The “FRS” was the most accurate score in predicting death or re-bleeding in all patients. The “FRS” was the most precise score in predicting the occurrence of spotting in all patients. The “FRS” was the most accurate score in predicting death among all patients. The mortality of patients at low risk of death (below the threshold value) was 2.2% for the “FRS”, 9.3% for the “CRS”, 0% for the “GBS” (p = 0.565), 50% for the “mGBS” and 11.4% for the “AIMS65”. Scores were more accurate for non-related portal hypertension UGIB. <b>Conclusion</b>: The “FRS” and the “CRS” are two precise scores in predicting the occurrence of an incident in the event of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. However, these scores were less effective in related portal hypertension UGIB</span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "="">.</span></span></span>展开更多
文摘目的探讨AIMS65评分在肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血(esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding,EGVB)患者住院死亡中的预测价值。方法回顾性纳入我院2016年1月至2020年12月诊治的378例肝硬化EGVB患者,根据住院期间生存情况分为存活组345例(91.27%)和死亡组33例(8.73%)。通过电子病历系统收集患者入院时临床资料,采用多因素Logistic回归分析EGVB患者住院期间死亡的危险因素。采用ROC曲线分析AIMS65评分预测EGVB患者住院期间死亡的效能。结果单因素分析显示,死亡组中重度腹水、有肝性脑病的比例以及GBS评分、FRS评分、AIMS65评分均高于存活组(P<0.05),年龄、性别、高血压等与存活组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,GBS评分(OR=1.704,95%CI:1.069~2.717,P=0.026)、FRS评分(OR=1.758,95%CI:1.160~2.663,P=0.008)、AIMS65评分(OR=1.868,95%CI:1.228~2.842,P=0.002)是肝硬化EGVB患者住院期间死亡的危险因素。ROC曲线分析显示,AIMS65评分预测EGVB患者住院期间死亡的AUC为0.836(95%CI:0.781~0.891),敏感性为72.73%,特异性为82.03%。结论AIMS65评分升高是肝硬化EGVB患者住院期间死亡的危险因素,可预测该类人群短期死亡风险。
文摘<strong>Objective</strong><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "=""><strong>:</strong> To evaluate and compare the prognostic contribution of different UGIB prognostic scores. <b>Patients and Method</b>: Descriptive cross-sectional study with retrospective collection conducted from January 2014 to December 2019. Patients hospitalized in the Gastroenterology Department of Campus Teaching Hospital of Lome for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage were included. The analytical component of this study had consisted of an evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of different prognostic scores (GBS, mGBS, FRS, CRS, AIMS65) in predicting the occurrence of death and/or re-bleeding within 42 days. These different scores were compared using ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curves. <b>Results</b>: We included 314 patients in our study. The male to female sex ratio was 2.48. Fibroscopy found non-related portal hypertension UGIB in 70.94% of the cases. The “FRS” was the most accurate score in predicting death or re-bleeding in all patients. The “FRS” was the most precise score in predicting the occurrence of spotting in all patients. The “FRS” was the most accurate score in predicting death among all patients. The mortality of patients at low risk of death (below the threshold value) was 2.2% for the “FRS”, 9.3% for the “CRS”, 0% for the “GBS” (p = 0.565), 50% for the “mGBS” and 11.4% for the “AIMS65”. Scores were more accurate for non-related portal hypertension UGIB. <b>Conclusion</b>: The “FRS” and the “CRS” are two precise scores in predicting the occurrence of an incident in the event of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. However, these scores were less effective in related portal hypertension UGIB</span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:;" "="">.</span></span></span>
