Validation of a pulmonary embolism risk assessment model in gynecological inpatients

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Zhen-Yi Jin, Chun-Min Li, Hong Qu, Wen-Tao Yang, Jia-Hao Wen, Hua-Liang Ren
{"title":"Validation of a pulmonary embolism risk assessment model in gynecological inpatients","authors":"Zhen-Yi Jin, Chun-Min Li, Hong Qu, Wen-Tao Yang, Jia-Hao Wen, Hua-Liang Ren","doi":"10.1186/s12959-024-00616-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To compare the predictive efficacy of the PADUA and Caprini models for pulmonary embolism (PE) in gynecological inpatients, analyze the risk factors for PE, and validate whether both models can effectively predict mortality rates. A total of 355 gynecological inpatients who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were included in the retrospective analysis. The comparative assessment of the predictive capabilities for PE between the PADUA and Caprini was carried out using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with PE. Additionally, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis plots were generated to validate the predictive efficacy for mortality rates. Among 355 patients, the PADUA and Caprini demonstrated the area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.757 and 0.756, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the AUC between the two models (P = 0.9542). Multivariate logistic analysis revealed immobility (P < 0.001), history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (P = 0.002), thrombophilia (P < 0.001), hormonal treatment (P = 0.022), and obesity (P = 0.019) as independent risk factors for PE. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis demonstrated the reliable predictive efficacy of both the Caprini (P = 0.00051) and PADUA (P = 0.00031) for mortality. ROC for the three- and six-month follow-ups suggested that the Caprini model exhibited superior predictive efficacy for mortality. The PADUA model can serve as a simple and effective tool for stratifying high-risk gynecological inpatients before undergoing CTPA. The Caprini model demonstrated superior predictive efficacy for mortality rates.","PeriodicalId":22982,"journal":{"name":"Thrombosis Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thrombosis Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-024-00616-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To compare the predictive efficacy of the PADUA and Caprini models for pulmonary embolism (PE) in gynecological inpatients, analyze the risk factors for PE, and validate whether both models can effectively predict mortality rates. A total of 355 gynecological inpatients who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were included in the retrospective analysis. The comparative assessment of the predictive capabilities for PE between the PADUA and Caprini was carried out using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with PE. Additionally, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis plots were generated to validate the predictive efficacy for mortality rates. Among 355 patients, the PADUA and Caprini demonstrated the area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.757 and 0.756, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the AUC between the two models (P = 0.9542). Multivariate logistic analysis revealed immobility (P < 0.001), history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (P = 0.002), thrombophilia (P < 0.001), hormonal treatment (P = 0.022), and obesity (P = 0.019) as independent risk factors for PE. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis demonstrated the reliable predictive efficacy of both the Caprini (P = 0.00051) and PADUA (P = 0.00031) for mortality. ROC for the three- and six-month follow-ups suggested that the Caprini model exhibited superior predictive efficacy for mortality. The PADUA model can serve as a simple and effective tool for stratifying high-risk gynecological inpatients before undergoing CTPA. The Caprini model demonstrated superior predictive efficacy for mortality rates.
验证妇科住院患者肺栓塞风险评估模型
比较 PADUA 模型和 Caprini 模型对妇科住院患者肺栓塞(PE)的预测效果,分析 PE 的风险因素,并验证这两种模型是否能有效预测死亡率。回顾性分析共纳入了 355 名接受计算机断层扫描肺血管造影术(CTPA)的妇科住院患者。使用接收器操作特征曲线(ROC)对 PADUA 和 Caprini 预测 PE 的能力进行了比较评估。逻辑回归分析用于确定与 PE 相关的风险因素。此外,还生成了 Kaplan-Meier 生存分析图,以验证对死亡率的预测效果。在 355 名患者中,PADUA 和 Caprini 的曲线下面积(AUC)值分别为 0.757 和 0.756。两个模型的 AUC 值在统计学上没有明显差异(P = 0.9542)。多变量逻辑分析显示,不活动(P < 0.001)、静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)病史(P = 0.002)、血栓性疾病(P < 0.001)、激素治疗(P = 0.022)和肥胖(P = 0.019)是导致 PE 的独立危险因素。卡普兰-梅耶生存分析表明,Caprini(P = 0.00051)和 PADUA(P = 0.00031)对死亡率具有可靠的预测效果。三个月和六个月随访的 ROC 显示,Caprini 模型对死亡率的预测效果更佳。PADUA 模型可作为一种简单而有效的工具,在接受 CTPA 之前对高危妇科住院患者进行分层。Caprini模型对死亡率的预测效果更佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Thrombosis Journal
Thrombosis Journal Medicine-Hematology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
3.20%
发文量
69
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Thrombosis Journal is an open-access journal that publishes original articles on aspects of clinical and basic research, new methodology, case reports and reviews in the areas of thrombosis. Topics of particular interest include the diagnosis of arterial and venous thrombosis, new antithrombotic treatments, new developments in the understanding, diagnosis and treatments of atherosclerotic vessel disease, relations between haemostasis and vascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, immunology and obesity.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信