评估急诊科上消化道出血患者的预后评分。

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Annals of emergency medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.024
Pierre-Clément Thiebaud, Eliana Wassermann, Mathilde de Caluwe, Clément Prebin, Florent Noel, Agnès Dechartres, Pierre-Alexis Raynal, Judith Leblanc, Youri Yordanov
{"title":"评估急诊科上消化道出血患者的预后评分。","authors":"Pierre-Clément Thiebaud, Eliana Wassermann, Mathilde de Caluwe, Clément Prebin, Florent Noel, Agnès Dechartres, Pierre-Alexis Raynal, Judith Leblanc, Youri Yordanov","doi":"10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>Early prognostic stratification could optimize the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and reduce unnecessary hospitalizations. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the performance of existing prognostic scores in predicting therapeutic intervention and death.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the literature identified existing prognostic scores. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included adult patients hospitalized for upper gastrointestinal bleeding from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite including therapeutic intervention within 7 days (blood transfusion, endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiology hemostasis) and/or 30-day death. Discrimination performance was estimated by the area under the curve (AUC). The ability to identify low-risk patients was analyzed using sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for defined thresholds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic search identified 39 prognostic scores, 12 of which could be analyzed. Among the 990 patients included, therapeutic intervention and/or death occurred in 755 (76.4%) patients. Scores with the highest discriminative performance to predict the primary composite outcome were Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) (AUC 0.869 [0.842 to 0.895]), modified GBS (AUC 0.872 [0.847 to 0.898]) and modified GBS 2 (AUC 0.855 [0.827 to 0.884]). The best performance to identify low-risk patients was for GBS≤1 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.99 to 1.00], NPV 0.89 [0.75 to 0.97]) and modified GBS=0 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.98 to 1.00], NPV 0.84 [0.71 to 0.94]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GBS and the modified GBS are the 2 best performing scores because they achieve both key objectives: stratifying patients based on their risk of therapeutic intervention and/or death and identifying low-risk patients who may qualify for outpatient management.</p>","PeriodicalId":8236,"journal":{"name":"Annals of emergency medicine","volume":" ","pages":"31-42"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Prognostic Scores for Emergency Department Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.\",\"authors\":\"Pierre-Clément Thiebaud, Eliana Wassermann, Mathilde de Caluwe, Clément Prebin, Florent Noel, Agnès Dechartres, Pierre-Alexis Raynal, Judith Leblanc, Youri Yordanov\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>Early prognostic stratification could optimize the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and reduce unnecessary hospitalizations. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the performance of existing prognostic scores in predicting therapeutic intervention and death.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the literature identified existing prognostic scores. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included adult patients hospitalized for upper gastrointestinal bleeding from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite including therapeutic intervention within 7 days (blood transfusion, endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiology hemostasis) and/or 30-day death. Discrimination performance was estimated by the area under the curve (AUC). The ability to identify low-risk patients was analyzed using sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for defined thresholds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic search identified 39 prognostic scores, 12 of which could be analyzed. Among the 990 patients included, therapeutic intervention and/or death occurred in 755 (76.4%) patients. Scores with the highest discriminative performance to predict the primary composite outcome were Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) (AUC 0.869 [0.842 to 0.895]), modified GBS (AUC 0.872 [0.847 to 0.898]) and modified GBS 2 (AUC 0.855 [0.827 to 0.884]). The best performance to identify low-risk patients was for GBS≤1 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.99 to 1.00], NPV 0.89 [0.75 to 0.97]) and modified GBS=0 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.98 to 1.00], NPV 0.84 [0.71 to 0.94]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GBS and the modified GBS are the 2 best performing scores because they achieve both key objectives: stratifying patients based on their risk of therapeutic intervention and/or death and identifying low-risk patients who may qualify for outpatient management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of emergency medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"31-42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of emergency medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.024\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of emergency medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的早期预后分层可优化上消化道出血患者的治疗,减少不必要的住院治疗。本研究旨在评估和比较现有预后评分在预测治疗干预和死亡方面的表现:方法:对文献进行系统检索,确定了现有的预后评分。一项多中心回顾性队列研究纳入了2019年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间因上消化道出血住院的成年患者。主要结果是包括 7 天内治疗干预(输血、内镜、手术或介入放射止血)和/或 30 天内死亡的综合结果。根据曲线下面积(AUC)估算识别性能。使用规定阈值的灵敏度和阴性预测值(NPV)分析识别低风险患者的能力:结果:系统性搜索确定了 39 个预后评分,其中 12 个可以进行分析。在纳入的 990 例患者中,755 例(76.4%)患者接受了治疗干预和/或死亡。格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分(GBS)(AUC 0.869 [0.842 至 0.895])、改良 GBS(AUC 0.872 [0.847 至 0.898])和改良 GBS 2(AUC 0.855 [0.827 至 0.884])是预测主要综合结果的判别性能最高的评分。GBS≤1(灵敏度0.99 [0.99至1.00],净现值0.89 [0.75至0.97])和改良GBS=0(灵敏度0.99 [0.98至1.00],净现值0.84 [0.71至0.94])在识别低危患者方面表现最佳:结论:GBS 和改良 GBS 是性能最好的两种评分,因为它们同时实现了两个关键目标:根据治疗干预和/或死亡风险对患者进行分层,以及识别符合门诊治疗条件的低风险患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Prognostic Scores for Emergency Department Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Study objective: Early prognostic stratification could optimize the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding and reduce unnecessary hospitalizations. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the performance of existing prognostic scores in predicting therapeutic intervention and death.

Methods: A systematic search of the literature identified existing prognostic scores. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included adult patients hospitalized for upper gastrointestinal bleeding from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite including therapeutic intervention within 7 days (blood transfusion, endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiology hemostasis) and/or 30-day death. Discrimination performance was estimated by the area under the curve (AUC). The ability to identify low-risk patients was analyzed using sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for defined thresholds.

Results: The systematic search identified 39 prognostic scores, 12 of which could be analyzed. Among the 990 patients included, therapeutic intervention and/or death occurred in 755 (76.4%) patients. Scores with the highest discriminative performance to predict the primary composite outcome were Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) (AUC 0.869 [0.842 to 0.895]), modified GBS (AUC 0.872 [0.847 to 0.898]) and modified GBS 2 (AUC 0.855 [0.827 to 0.884]). The best performance to identify low-risk patients was for GBS≤1 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.99 to 1.00], NPV 0.89 [0.75 to 0.97]) and modified GBS=0 (sensitivity 0.99 [0.98 to 1.00], NPV 0.84 [0.71 to 0.94]).

Conclusions: The GBS and the modified GBS are the 2 best performing scores because they achieve both key objectives: stratifying patients based on their risk of therapeutic intervention and/or death and identifying low-risk patients who may qualify for outpatient management.

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
Annals of emergency medicine
Annals of emergency medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
819
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Emergency Medicine, the official journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to improving the quality of care by publishing the highest quality science for emergency medicine and related medical specialties. Annals publishes original research, clinical reports, opinion, and educational information related to the practice, teaching, and research of emergency medicine. In addition to general emergency medicine topics, Annals regularly publishes articles on out-of-hospital emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, injury and disease prevention, health policy and ethics, disaster management, toxicology, and related topics.
×
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