Mugla评分的发展:一种基于关联的工具,用于急诊科横纹肌溶解患者的风险分层。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Ömer Faruk Karakoyun, Fulden Cantaş Türkiş, Yalcin Golcuk, Mehmet Reha Yılmaz, Burcu Kaymak Golcuk
{"title":"Mugla评分的发展:一种基于关联的工具,用于急诊科横纹肌溶解患者的风险分层。","authors":"Ömer Faruk Karakoyun, Fulden Cantaş Türkiş, Yalcin Golcuk, Mehmet Reha Yılmaz, Burcu Kaymak Golcuk","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-04009-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rhabdomyolysis is a potentially life-threatening syndrome characterized by skeletal muscle breakdown and systemic release of intracellular components, often resulting in acute kidney injury or death. Early risk stratification remains challenging in the emergency department (ED) setting due to heterogeneous presentations and unpredictable outcomes. To develop and internally validate the Mugla Score-a pragmatic, association-based tool for predicting adverse outcomes in ED patients with rhabdomyolysis. In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, adult ED patients with serum creatine kinase ≥ 1000 U/L between July 1, 2019, and July 1, 2024, were included. The primary outcome was a composite of renal replacement therapy or 90-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors, which were assigned weighted point values. Internal validity was assessed using five-fold cross-validation and 1,000-iteration bootstrap resampling. Among 1031 patients (mean age: 49.0 ± 21.8 years; 75.9% male), 109 (10.6%) experienced the composite outcome. Seven variables were independently associated with adverse events: age ≥ 50 years, platelet count ≤ 170 × 10<sup>3</sup>/μL, MCHC ≤ 32.8 g/dL, calcium ≤ 8.5 mg/dL, ALP ≥ 115 U/L, BEecf ≤  - 6 mmol/L, and etiological classification. The Mugla Score (range: 0-12.5) showed strong discrimination (AUC: 0.861, 95% CI: 0.824-0.898). A threshold of ≥ 4 points yielded a 97% negative predictive value. The Mugla Score provides a clinically interpretable, ED-focused tool for early risk stratification in rhabdomyolysis. While internally validated, external prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability prior to routine clinical adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of the Mugla Score: an association-based tool for risk stratification in emergency department patients with rhabdomyolysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ömer Faruk Karakoyun, Fulden Cantaş Türkiş, Yalcin Golcuk, Mehmet Reha Yılmaz, Burcu Kaymak Golcuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-025-04009-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Rhabdomyolysis is a potentially life-threatening syndrome characterized by skeletal muscle breakdown and systemic release of intracellular components, often resulting in acute kidney injury or death. Early risk stratification remains challenging in the emergency department (ED) setting due to heterogeneous presentations and unpredictable outcomes. To develop and internally validate the Mugla Score-a pragmatic, association-based tool for predicting adverse outcomes in ED patients with rhabdomyolysis. In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, adult ED patients with serum creatine kinase ≥ 1000 U/L between July 1, 2019, and July 1, 2024, were included. The primary outcome was a composite of renal replacement therapy or 90-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors, which were assigned weighted point values. Internal validity was assessed using five-fold cross-validation and 1,000-iteration bootstrap resampling. Among 1031 patients (mean age: 49.0 ± 21.8 years; 75.9% male), 109 (10.6%) experienced the composite outcome. Seven variables were independently associated with adverse events: age ≥ 50 years, platelet count ≤ 170 × 10<sup>3</sup>/μL, MCHC ≤ 32.8 g/dL, calcium ≤ 8.5 mg/dL, ALP ≥ 115 U/L, BEecf ≤  - 6 mmol/L, and etiological classification. The Mugla Score (range: 0-12.5) showed strong discrimination (AUC: 0.861, 95% CI: 0.824-0.898). A threshold of ≥ 4 points yielded a 97% negative predictive value. The Mugla Score provides a clinically interpretable, ED-focused tool for early risk stratification in rhabdomyolysis. While internally validated, external prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability prior to routine clinical adoption.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04009-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-04009-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

横纹肌溶解是一种潜在的危及生命的综合征,其特征是骨骼肌分解和细胞内成分的全身释放,常导致急性肾损伤或死亡。早期风险分层仍然具有挑战性,在急诊科(ED)设置由于异质的表现和不可预测的结果。开发并内部验证Mugla评分——一种实用的、基于关联的工具,用于预测ED伴横纹肌溶解患者的不良结局。在这项回顾性的单中心队列研究中,纳入了2019年7月1日至2024年7月1日期间血清肌酸激酶≥1000 U/L的成人ED患者。主要结局是肾脏替代治疗或90天死亡率的综合结果。多变量逻辑回归识别独立预测因子,并赋予其加权点值。内部效度评估采用五倍交叉验证和1000次迭代自举重采样。1031例患者(平均年龄49.0±21.8岁;75.9%男性),109例(10.6%)出现复合结局。7个变量与不良事件独立相关:年龄≥50岁、血小板计数≤170 × 103/μL、MCHC≤32.8 g/dL、钙≤8.5 mg/dL、ALP≥115 U/L、BEecf≤- 6 mmol/L、病因分类。Mugla评分(范围:0-12.5)具有很强的鉴别性(AUC: 0.861, 95% CI: 0.824-0.898)。≥4分的阈值为97%的阴性预测值。Mugla评分为横纹肌溶解症的早期风险分层提供了一种临床可解释的、以ed为重点的工具。虽然内部验证,但在常规临床应用之前,需要外部前瞻性研究来评估其普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of the Mugla Score: an association-based tool for risk stratification in emergency department patients with rhabdomyolysis.

Rhabdomyolysis is a potentially life-threatening syndrome characterized by skeletal muscle breakdown and systemic release of intracellular components, often resulting in acute kidney injury or death. Early risk stratification remains challenging in the emergency department (ED) setting due to heterogeneous presentations and unpredictable outcomes. To develop and internally validate the Mugla Score-a pragmatic, association-based tool for predicting adverse outcomes in ED patients with rhabdomyolysis. In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, adult ED patients with serum creatine kinase ≥ 1000 U/L between July 1, 2019, and July 1, 2024, were included. The primary outcome was a composite of renal replacement therapy or 90-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent predictors, which were assigned weighted point values. Internal validity was assessed using five-fold cross-validation and 1,000-iteration bootstrap resampling. Among 1031 patients (mean age: 49.0 ± 21.8 years; 75.9% male), 109 (10.6%) experienced the composite outcome. Seven variables were independently associated with adverse events: age ≥ 50 years, platelet count ≤ 170 × 103/μL, MCHC ≤ 32.8 g/dL, calcium ≤ 8.5 mg/dL, ALP ≥ 115 U/L, BEecf ≤  - 6 mmol/L, and etiological classification. The Mugla Score (range: 0-12.5) showed strong discrimination (AUC: 0.861, 95% CI: 0.824-0.898). A threshold of ≥ 4 points yielded a 97% negative predictive value. The Mugla Score provides a clinically interpretable, ED-focused tool for early risk stratification in rhabdomyolysis. While internally validated, external prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability prior to routine clinical adoption.

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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信