摘要
Background： Whether the Glasgow Coma Scale （GCS） can assess intubated patients is still a topic of controversy. We compared the test performance of the GCS motor component （GCS-M）/Simplified Motor Score （SMS） to the total of the GCS in predicting the outcomes of intubated acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients. Methods： A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected observational data was performed. Between January 2012 and October 2015, 106 consecutive acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients with intubation were included in the study. GCS, GCS-M, GCS eye-opening component, and SMS were documented on admission and at 24, 48, and 72 h after admission to Neurointensive Care Unit （NCU）. Outcomes were death and unfavorable prognosis （modified Rankin Scale： 5-6） at NCU discharge. The receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve was obtained to determine the prognostic performance and best cutoff value for each scoring system. Comparison of the area under the ROC curves （AUCs） was performed using the Z-test.Results： Of 106 patients included in the study, 41 （38.7%） patients died, and 69 （65.1%） patients had poor prognosis when discharged from NCU. The four time points within 72 h of admission to the NCU were equivalent for each scale＇s predictive power, except that 0 h was the best for each scale in predicting outcomes of patients with right-hemisphere lesions. Nonsignificant difference was found between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs in predicting death at 0 h （0.721 vs. 0.717, Z = 0.135, P = 0.893） and 72 h （0.730 vs. 0.765, Z = 1.887, P = 0.060）, in predicting poor prognosis at 0 h （0.827 vs. 0.819, Z = 0.395, P = 0.693）, 24 h （0.771 vs. 0.760, Z = 0.944, P = 0.345）, 48 h （0.732 vs. 0.741, Z= 0.593, P= 0.590）, and 72 h （0.775 vs. 0.780, Z= 0.302, P= 0.763）. AUCs in predicting death for patients with left-hemisphere lesions ranged from 0.700 to 0.804 for GCS-M and from 0.700 to 0.824 for GCS, in predicting poor prognosis ranged from 0.841 to 0.969 for GCS-M and from 0.875 to 0.969 for GCS, with no significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs within 72 h （P 〉 0.05）. No significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs was found in predicting death （0.964 vs. 0.964, P = 1.000） and poor prognosis （ 1.000 vs. 1.000, P = 1.000） for patients with right-hemisphere lesions at 0 h. AUCs in predicting death for patients with brainstem or cerebella were poor for GCS-M （〈0.700）, in predicting poor prognosis ranged from 0.727 to 0.801 for GCS-M and from 0.704 to 0.820 for GCS, with no significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs within 72 h （P 〉 0.05）. The SMS AUCs （〈0.700） in predicting outcomes were poor. Conclusions： The GCS-M approaches the same test performance as the GCS in assessing the prognosis ofintubatcd acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients. The GCS-M could be accurately and reliably applied in patients with hemisphere lesions, but caution must be taken for patients with brainstem or cerebella lesions.
Background： Whether the Glasgow Coma Scale （GCS） can assess intubated patients is still a topic of controversy. We compared the test performance of the GCS motor component （GCS-M）/Simplified Motor Score （SMS） to the total of the GCS in predicting the outcomes of intubated acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients. Methods： A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected observational data was performed. Between January 2012 and October 2015, 106 consecutive acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients with intubation were included in the study. GCS, GCS-M, GCS eye-opening component, and SMS were documented on admission and at 24, 48, and 72 h after admission to Neurointensive Care Unit （NCU）. Outcomes were death and unfavorable prognosis （modified Rankin Scale： 5-6） at NCU discharge. The receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve was obtained to determine the prognostic performance and best cutoff value for each scoring system. Comparison of the area under the ROC curves （AUCs） was performed using the Z-test.Results： Of 106 patients included in the study, 41 （38.7%） patients died, and 69 （65.1%） patients had poor prognosis when discharged from NCU. The four time points within 72 h of admission to the NCU were equivalent for each scale＇s predictive power, except that 0 h was the best for each scale in predicting outcomes of patients with right-hemisphere lesions. Nonsignificant difference was found between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs in predicting death at 0 h （0.721 vs. 0.717, Z = 0.135, P = 0.893） and 72 h （0.730 vs. 0.765, Z = 1.887, P = 0.060）, in predicting poor prognosis at 0 h （0.827 vs. 0.819, Z = 0.395, P = 0.693）, 24 h （0.771 vs. 0.760, Z = 0.944, P = 0.345）, 48 h （0.732 vs. 0.741, Z= 0.593, P= 0.590）, and 72 h （0.775 vs. 0.780, Z= 0.302, P= 0.763）. AUCs in predicting death for patients with left-hemisphere lesions ranged from 0.700 to 0.804 for GCS-M and from 0.700 to 0.824 for GCS, in predicting poor prognosis ranged from 0.841 to 0.969 for GCS-M and from 0.875 to 0.969 for GCS, with no significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs within 72 h （P 〉 0.05）. No significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs was found in predicting death （0.964 vs. 0.964, P = 1.000） and poor prognosis （ 1.000 vs. 1.000, P = 1.000） for patients with right-hemisphere lesions at 0 h. AUCs in predicting death for patients with brainstem or cerebella were poor for GCS-M （〈0.700）, in predicting poor prognosis ranged from 0.727 to 0.801 for GCS-M and from 0.704 to 0.820 for GCS, with no significant difference between GCS-M AUCs and GCS AUCs within 72 h （P 〉 0.05）. The SMS AUCs （〈0.700） in predicting outcomes were poor. Conclusions： The GCS-M approaches the same test performance as the GCS in assessing the prognosis ofintubatcd acute severe cerebral vascular disease patients. The GCS-M could be accurately and reliably applied in patients with hemisphere lesions, but caution must be taken for patients with brainstem or cerebella lesions.
基金
The study was supported by grants from the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China （863 Program, No. 2015AA020514） and the National Natural Science Foundation of China （No. 81671037）.
