预测急性下消化道出血不良后果的风险评分比较

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Chenyang Li, Enqiang Linghu, Chao Chen
{"title":"预测急性下消化道出血不良后果的风险评分比较","authors":"Chenyang Li, Enqiang Linghu, Chao Chen","doi":"10.1155/2024/3111414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<i>Purpose</i>. Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is a common emergency in gastroenterology. Currently, there is insufficient information to predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Our study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of the clinical risk scores currently utilized and their ability to predict significant outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding. <i>Methods</i>. We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients who were admitted to ALGIB and underwent colonoscopy or angiography at a single center between January 2018 and December 2022. Adverse outcomes associated with ALGIB included rebleeding, blood transfusion, hemostatic interventions, and in-hospital death. We calculated six risk scores at admission (Oakland, Birmingham, SHA<sub>2</sub>PE, Ramaekers, SALGIB, and CNUH-5). We measured the accuracy of these scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared them with DeLong’s test. <i>Results</i>. 123 patients with confirmed LGIB (aged 65 years, 55-75) were finally included. The most common diagnoses were colorectal cancer (25%) and hemorrhoids (14%). All scores demonstrated sufficient and comparable effectiveness for hemostatic intervention but no discrimination for rebleeding. The Oakland and SALGIB scores were superior to the other scores in predicting blood transfusion (AUC: 0.97 and 0.95, respectively; <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 28.184 11.7782\" width=\"28.184pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)\"></path></g></svg>)</span></span> and any adverse outcomes (AUC: 0.78 and 0.78, respectively; <span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-113\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g117-34\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 28.184 11.7782\" width=\"28.184pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-47\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-57\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)\"></path></g></svg>).</span></span> <i>Conclusions</i>. The Oakland and SALGIB scores outperform the other scores in predicting the requirement for blood transfusion in ALGIB patients, but no single prediction tool had the best ability across all outcomes. Novel risk stratification scores with higher performance are needed for better risk stratification in ALGIB.","PeriodicalId":12597,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology Research and Practice","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Risk Scores for Predicting Adverse Outcomes in Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding\",\"authors\":\"Chenyang Li, Enqiang Linghu, Chao Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/3111414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<i>Purpose</i>. Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is a common emergency in gastroenterology. Currently, there is insufficient information to predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Our study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of the clinical risk scores currently utilized and their ability to predict significant outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding. <i>Methods</i>. We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients who were admitted to ALGIB and underwent colonoscopy or angiography at a single center between January 2018 and December 2022. Adverse outcomes associated with ALGIB included rebleeding, blood transfusion, hemostatic interventions, and in-hospital death. We calculated six risk scores at admission (Oakland, Birmingham, SHA<sub>2</sub>PE, Ramaekers, SALGIB, and CNUH-5). We measured the accuracy of these scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared them with DeLong’s test. <i>Results</i>. 123 patients with confirmed LGIB (aged 65 years, 55-75) were finally included. The most common diagnoses were colorectal cancer (25%) and hemorrhoids (14%). All scores demonstrated sufficient and comparable effectiveness for hemostatic intervention but no discrimination for rebleeding. The Oakland and SALGIB scores were superior to the other scores in predicting blood transfusion (AUC: 0.97 and 0.95, respectively; <span><svg height=\\\"11.7782pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\\\" width=\\\"18.973pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\\\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\\\"11.7782pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 28.184 11.7782\\\" width=\\\"28.184pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)\\\"></path></g></svg>)</span></span> and any adverse outcomes (AUC: 0.78 and 0.78, respectively; <span><svg height=\\\"11.7782pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\\\" width=\\\"18.973pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-113\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g117-34\\\"></use></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\\\"11.7782pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 28.184 11.7782\\\" width=\\\"28.184pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-47\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-57\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,44.289,0)\\\"></path></g></svg>).</span></span> <i>Conclusions</i>. The Oakland and SALGIB scores outperform the other scores in predicting the requirement for blood transfusion in ALGIB patients, but no single prediction tool had the best ability across all outcomes. Novel risk stratification scores with higher performance are needed for better risk stratification in ALGIB.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gastroenterology Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gastroenterology Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/3111414\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/3111414","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的。急性下消化道出血(ALGIB)是消化内科常见的急症。目前,预测急性下消化道出血患者不良后果的信息不足。我们的研究旨在比较目前使用的临床风险评分的有效性及其预测下消化道出血重大后果的能力。研究方法我们对 2018 年 1 月至 2022 年 12 月期间因 ALGIB 入院并在一个中心接受结肠镜检查或血管造影术的患者进行了一项回顾性观察研究。与ALGIB相关的不良后果包括再出血、输血、止血干预和院内死亡。我们计算了入院时的六个风险评分(奥克兰、伯明翰、SHA2PE、Ramaekers、SALGIB 和 CNUH-5)。我们用接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)来衡量这些评分的准确性,并与 DeLong 检验进行比较。结果最终纳入了 123 名确诊为 LGIB 的患者(65 岁,55-75 岁)。最常见的诊断是结肠直肠癌(25%)和痔疮(14%)。所有评分均显示止血干预具有足够且可比的有效性,但对再出血没有区分。奥克兰和 SALGIB 评分在预测输血(AUC 分别为 0.97 和 0.95;)和任何不良后果(AUC 分别为 0.78 和 0.78;)方面优于其他评分。结论Oakland和SALGIB评分在预测ALGIB患者输血需求方面优于其他评分,但没有一种预测工具在所有结果方面具有最佳能力。为了更好地对 ALGIB 进行风险分层,需要性能更高的新型风险分层评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Risk Scores for Predicting Adverse Outcomes in Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Purpose. Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is a common emergency in gastroenterology. Currently, there is insufficient information to predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Our study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of the clinical risk scores currently utilized and their ability to predict significant outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods. We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients who were admitted to ALGIB and underwent colonoscopy or angiography at a single center between January 2018 and December 2022. Adverse outcomes associated with ALGIB included rebleeding, blood transfusion, hemostatic interventions, and in-hospital death. We calculated six risk scores at admission (Oakland, Birmingham, SHA2PE, Ramaekers, SALGIB, and CNUH-5). We measured the accuracy of these scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared them with DeLong’s test. Results. 123 patients with confirmed LGIB (aged 65 years, 55-75) were finally included. The most common diagnoses were colorectal cancer (25%) and hemorrhoids (14%). All scores demonstrated sufficient and comparable effectiveness for hemostatic intervention but no discrimination for rebleeding. The Oakland and SALGIB scores were superior to the other scores in predicting blood transfusion (AUC: 0.97 and 0.95, respectively; ) and any adverse outcomes (AUC: 0.78 and 0.78, respectively; ). Conclusions. The Oakland and SALGIB scores outperform the other scores in predicting the requirement for blood transfusion in ALGIB patients, but no single prediction tool had the best ability across all outcomes. Novel risk stratification scores with higher performance are needed for better risk stratification in ALGIB.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Gastroenterology Research and Practice GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Gastroenterology Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal which publishes original research articles, review articles and clinical studies based on all areas of gastroenterology, hepatology, pancreas and biliary, and related cancers. The journal welcomes submissions on the physiology, pathophysiology, etiology, diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal diseases. The aim of the journal is to provide cutting edge research related to the field of gastroenterology, as well as digestive diseases and disorders. Topics of interest include: Management of pancreatic diseases Third space endoscopy Endoscopic resection Therapeutic endoscopy Therapeutic endosonography.
×
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