Objective To develop a tool capable of early and exactly predicting various outcomes in comatose survivors who restore spontaneous circulation after cardiopulmonary resuscitation （CPR） and validate its performance. ...Objective To develop a tool capable of early and exactly predicting various outcomes in comatose survivors who restore spontaneous circulation after cardiopulmonary resuscitation （CPR） and validate its performance. Methods Variables that were both readily available and predictive of outcomes were identified by systematically reviewing published literature on resuscitation. A value was assigned to these variables. We used these variables in combination with APACHE II score to devise a multifactorial prediction score system, which we called PRCSs Prognostication Score （PRCSs-PS）. Outcomes in 115 hospitalized comatose survivors after CPR were retrospectively reviewed using PRCSs-PS. Score of patients with different outcomes was compared. The area under the receiver- operating characteristic （ROC） curve was determined to evaluate performance of this tool to identify patients with a poor outcome （CPC4 and 5） and other outcomes （CPC1, 2, and 3）. Results There were differences of PRCSs-PS score among multiple groups with five different outcomes （CPC 1-5）（F=65.91, P=0.000）. Pairwise groups with different CPC were compared： no significant difference was noted between CPC1 and CPC2 （12.41±6.49 vs 17.38±6.91,P=0.092）, but difference between other pairwise CPC groups was statistically significant （CPC2 vs CPC3：17.38±6.91 vs 24.50±5.80, P=0.041, CPC3 vs CPC4：24.50±5.80 vs 32.29±5.24, P=0.006）. The performance of PRCSs-PS to discriminate patients with a poor outcome from patients with other outcomes went as follows： it had 100% sensitivity, 78.6% specificity, and 178.6 diagnostic index at the score cut-off22.5; it had 77.8% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 176.4 diagnostic index at the score cut-off32.5. Score 23 and 33 were two key cut-offpoints. The area under the ROC curve was 0.968, showing excellent discrimination. Conclusions The final outcomes in post-resuscitation comatose survivors can be accurately predicted using PRCSs-PS Score.展开更多
目的探讨安宫牛黄丸辅助再灌注治疗重症急性缺血性卒中(AIS)的疗效。方法回顾性选取2021年5月至2023年5月绍兴市人民医院收治的60例再灌注治疗时间窗内重症AIS患者为研究对象,采用安宫牛黄丸辅助再灌注治疗30例,为观察组;采用单纯再灌...目的探讨安宫牛黄丸辅助再灌注治疗重症急性缺血性卒中(AIS)的疗效。方法回顾性选取2021年5月至2023年5月绍兴市人民医院收治的60例再灌注治疗时间窗内重症AIS患者为研究对象,采用安宫牛黄丸辅助再灌注治疗30例,为观察组;采用单纯再灌注治疗30例,为对照组。观察并比较两组患者治疗后病情及神经功能指标[包括美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)、改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分以及梗死后加重、梗死后出血、脑疝、神经功能恢复、治疗期间2周内死亡比例]、炎症指标[包括C反应蛋白(CRP)、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)、血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR)、全身免疫炎症指数(SII)]等。结果观察组患者在90 d NIHSS评分,14、30 d GCS评分,90 d mRS评分以及神经功能恢复比例方面均优于对照组(均P<0.05)。两组患者治疗前后CRP、NLR、PLR、SII等炎症指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论安宫牛黄丸辅助再灌注治疗AIS有助于促进患者早期意识的恢复和远期神经功能缺损的改善,但对炎症指标影响不大。展开更多
目的 探讨rSIG/A(reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow coma score divided by age)在急诊创伤患者中对预后的评估价值。方法 收集2012年1月至2014年3月浙江大学医学院附属第一医院急诊收治的1060例创伤患者的临床资料,以28d预...目的 探讨rSIG/A(reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow coma score divided by age)在急诊创伤患者中对预后的评估价值。方法 收集2012年1月至2014年3月浙江大学医学院附属第一医院急诊收治的1060例创伤患者的临床资料,以28d预后为结局,将患者分为存活组和死亡组;根据rSIG/A最佳截断值,将患者分为rSIG/A≤0.34组和rSIG/A>0.34组;根据急性生理学和慢性健康状况评价Ⅱ(acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ,APACHE Ⅱ)评分最佳截断值,将患者分为APACHE Ⅱ评分≤12分组、APACHE Ⅱ评分>12分组。回顾性分析其生命体征、格拉斯哥昏迷评分(Glasgow coma score,GCS)、APACHE Ⅱ评分、rSIG/A、病死率等指标,并比较rSIG/A与APACHE Ⅱ评分间的关系,分析其与预后的关系。结果 存活组患者的rSIG/A、GCS评分均高于死亡组,APACHE Ⅱ评分低于死亡组(P<0.01)。rSIG/A与APACHE Ⅱ评分对创伤患者病死率均有一定的预测价值(曲线下面积分别为0.866、0.856),但两者间差异无统计学意义。rSIG/A≤0.34组患者的APACHE Ⅱ评分、病死率均大于rSIG/A>0.34组(P<0.01),APACHE Ⅱ评分≤12分组患者的rSIG/A值大于APACHE Ⅱ评分>12分组,病死率小于APACHE Ⅱ评分>12分组(P<0.01)。创伤患者rSIG/A值与APACHE Ⅱ评分呈负相关(r=–0.574,P<0.01)。rSIG/A值(OR=0.008,95%CI:0~0.620,P=0.030)与死亡呈负相关;APACHE Ⅱ评分(OR=1.106,95%CI:1.009~1.213,P=0.031)与死亡呈正相关(P<0.05)。结论 rSIG/A、APACHE Ⅱ评分在创伤患者伤情严重程度及预后评估方面有一定的价值,但由于rSIG/A具有无创、简便、快速及持续评估的优势,因此,更加值得在急诊推广。展开更多
文摘Objective To develop a tool capable of early and exactly predicting various outcomes in comatose survivors who restore spontaneous circulation after cardiopulmonary resuscitation （CPR） and validate its performance. Methods Variables that were both readily available and predictive of outcomes were identified by systematically reviewing published literature on resuscitation. A value was assigned to these variables. We used these variables in combination with APACHE II score to devise a multifactorial prediction score system, which we called PRCSs Prognostication Score （PRCSs-PS）. Outcomes in 115 hospitalized comatose survivors after CPR were retrospectively reviewed using PRCSs-PS. Score of patients with different outcomes was compared. The area under the receiver- operating characteristic （ROC） curve was determined to evaluate performance of this tool to identify patients with a poor outcome （CPC4 and 5） and other outcomes （CPC1, 2, and 3）. Results There were differences of PRCSs-PS score among multiple groups with five different outcomes （CPC 1-5）（F=65.91, P=0.000）. Pairwise groups with different CPC were compared： no significant difference was noted between CPC1 and CPC2 （12.41±6.49 vs 17.38±6.91,P=0.092）, but difference between other pairwise CPC groups was statistically significant （CPC2 vs CPC3：17.38±6.91 vs 24.50±5.80, P=0.041, CPC3 vs CPC4：24.50±5.80 vs 32.29±5.24, P=0.006）. The performance of PRCSs-PS to discriminate patients with a poor outcome from patients with other outcomes went as follows： it had 100% sensitivity, 78.6% specificity, and 178.6 diagnostic index at the score cut-off22.5; it had 77.8% sensitivity, 100% specificity and 176.4 diagnostic index at the score cut-off32.5. Score 23 and 33 were two key cut-offpoints. The area under the ROC curve was 0.968, showing excellent discrimination. Conclusions The final outcomes in post-resuscitation comatose survivors can be accurately predicted using PRCSs-PS Score.
文摘目的探讨安宫牛黄丸辅助再灌注治疗重症急性缺血性卒中(AIS)的疗效。方法回顾性选取2021年5月至2023年5月绍兴市人民医院收治的60例再灌注治疗时间窗内重症AIS患者为研究对象,采用安宫牛黄丸辅助再灌注治疗30例,为观察组;采用单纯再灌注治疗30例,为对照组。观察并比较两组患者治疗后病情及神经功能指标[包括美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)、改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分以及梗死后加重、梗死后出血、脑疝、神经功能恢复、治疗期间2周内死亡比例]、炎症指标[包括C反应蛋白(CRP)、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)、血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR)、全身免疫炎症指数(SII)]等。结果观察组患者在90 d NIHSS评分,14、30 d GCS评分,90 d mRS评分以及神经功能恢复比例方面均优于对照组(均P<0.05)。两组患者治疗前后CRP、NLR、PLR、SII等炎症指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论安宫牛黄丸辅助再灌注治疗AIS有助于促进患者早期意识的恢复和远期神经功能缺损的改善,但对炎症指标影响不大。
文摘目的分析创伤急诊失血性休克患者格拉斯哥昏迷评分(Glasgowcoma score,GCS)、血乳酸(lactic acid,Lac)与输血量的相关性及对患者预后的预测价值。方法回顾性收集2021年3月至2023年5月于金华市人民医院急诊医学中心诊治且完成随访的128例失血性休克患者的临床资料,按预后情况分为预后良好组(n=106)和预后不良组(n=22),比较两组患者的一般资料及GCS评分、Lac水平、输血量。采用Cox回归模型分析创伤急诊失血性休克患者预后情况的影响因素。建立受试者操作特征曲线(receiver operating characteristic curve,ROC曲线)分析GCS评分、Lac水平、输血量对创伤急诊失血性休克患者预后的预测价值。结果128例患者中预后不良22例,占比17.19%。预后不良组患者的初始24h输血量及Lac、白细胞(whitebloodcell,WBC)水平高于预后良好组,入院GCS评分、血红蛋白(hemoglobin,Hb)水平低于预后良好组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Pearson相关分析显示初始24h输血量与入院GCS评分、入院Hb水平呈负相关(P<0.05),与入院Lac水平呈正相关(P<0.05)。初始24h输血量、入院GCS评分及入院Lac、Hb水平是影响创伤急诊失血性休克患者预后的独立危险因素(P<0.05)。初始24h输血量、入院GCS评分、入院Lac、入院Hb水平及联合检测的曲线下面积(area under the curve,AUC)分别为0.722、0.872、0.881、0.798、0.931,敏感度分别为68.2%、76.6%、85.7%、75.7%、88.8%,特异性分别为70.8%、81.0%、78.5%、81.0%、85.7%。成对Z检验显示,联合检测的AUC高于单个指标检测,且敏感度和特异性均为最优(P<0.05)。结论初始24h输血量、入院GCS评分及入院Lac、Hb水平均是影响创伤急诊失血性休克患者预后不良的独立危险因素,且4项指标联合检测的效能价值最高。
