动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血量表的预后价值:秘鲁一家参考中心的报告。

Giuseppe Rojas-Panta , Gian F. Reyes-Narro , Carlos Toro-Huamanchumo , Joham Choque-Velasquez , Giancarlo Saal-Zapata
{"title":"动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血量表的预后价值:秘鲁一家参考中心的报告。","authors":"Giuseppe Rojas-Panta ,&nbsp;Gian F. Reyes-Narro ,&nbsp;Carlos Toro-Huamanchumo ,&nbsp;Joham Choque-Velasquez ,&nbsp;Giancarlo Saal-Zapata","doi":"10.1016/j.neucie.2023.05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Multiple scales have been designed to stratify the severity and predict the prognosis in the initial evaluation of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Our study aimed to validate the most commonly used prognostic scales for aSAH in our population: Hunt-Hess, modified Hunt-Hess, World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), Prognosis on Admission of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (PAASH), and Barrow Aneurysm Institute (BAI) scales.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study includes all aSAH cases treated at our institution between June 2019 and December 2020. We developed a retrospective cohort by reviewing medical records<span> and radiologic images performed during hospitalization. The outcome was evaluated using the modified Rankin scale (mRS). It was defined as a poor outcome (mRS 4–5) and mortality (mRS 6). The ROC curves and the area under the curve (AUC) of each of the prognostic scales were calculated to evaluate their prognostic prediction capacity.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 142 patients were diagnosed with aSAH. A poor outcome occurred in 52.1% of the patients, whereas mortality was 27.5%. The AUC of the scales studied was similar and no significant difference was found between them for predicting a poor outcome (<em>P</em> = .709) or mortality (<em>P</em> = .715).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We determined that the prognostic scales for aSAH had a similar predictive value for poor clinical outcomes and mortality in our institution, with no significant difference. Thus, we recommend the most simple and well-known scale used institutionally.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74273,"journal":{"name":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","volume":"35 1","pages":"Pages 1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostic value of scales for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: Report of a reference center in Peru\",\"authors\":\"Giuseppe Rojas-Panta ,&nbsp;Gian F. Reyes-Narro ,&nbsp;Carlos Toro-Huamanchumo ,&nbsp;Joham Choque-Velasquez ,&nbsp;Giancarlo Saal-Zapata\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.neucie.2023.05.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Multiple scales have been designed to stratify the severity and predict the prognosis in the initial evaluation of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Our study aimed to validate the most commonly used prognostic scales for aSAH in our population: Hunt-Hess, modified Hunt-Hess, World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), Prognosis on Admission of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (PAASH), and Barrow Aneurysm Institute (BAI) scales.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study includes all aSAH cases treated at our institution between June 2019 and December 2020. We developed a retrospective cohort by reviewing medical records<span> and radiologic images performed during hospitalization. The outcome was evaluated using the modified Rankin scale (mRS). It was defined as a poor outcome (mRS 4–5) and mortality (mRS 6). The ROC curves and the area under the curve (AUC) of each of the prognostic scales were calculated to evaluate their prognostic prediction capacity.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 142 patients were diagnosed with aSAH. A poor outcome occurred in 52.1% of the patients, whereas mortality was 27.5%. The AUC of the scales studied was similar and no significant difference was found between them for predicting a poor outcome (<em>P</em> = .709) or mortality (<em>P</em> = .715).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We determined that the prognostic scales for aSAH had a similar predictive value for poor clinical outcomes and mortality in our institution, with no significant difference. Thus, we recommend the most simple and well-known scale used institutionally.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurocirugia (English Edition)\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurocirugia (English Edition)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2529849623000199\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2529849623000199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介在对动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血(aSAH)患者进行初步评估时,设计了多种量表来对严重程度进行分层并预测预后。我们的研究旨在验证我国人群中最常用的蛛网膜下腔出血预后量表:Hunt-Hess量表、改良 Hunt-Hess量表、世界神经外科学会联合会(WFNS)量表、动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血入院预后量表(PAASH)和巴罗动脉瘤研究所(BAI)量表:本研究包括2019年6月至2020年12月期间在我院接受治疗的所有动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血病例。我们通过查看住院期间的病历和放射影像,建立了一个回顾性队列。结果采用改良兰金量表(mRS)进行评估。其定义为不良预后(mRS 4-5)和死亡(mRS 6)。计算了每个预后量表的 ROC 曲线和曲线下面积(AUC),以评估其预后预测能力:结果:共有 142 名患者被确诊为 ASAH。结果:共有 142 名患者被诊断为 ASAH,52.1% 的患者预后不佳,死亡率为 27.5%。所研究的量表的AUC相似,在预测不良预后(P = .709)或死亡率(P = .715)方面没有发现明显差异:结论:我们认为,在我们的研究机构中,ASAH 的预后量表对不良临床预后和死亡率的预测价值相似,没有明显差异。因此,我们推荐在本院使用最简单、最知名的量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prognostic value of scales for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: Report of a reference center in Peru

Introduction

Multiple scales have been designed to stratify the severity and predict the prognosis in the initial evaluation of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Our study aimed to validate the most commonly used prognostic scales for aSAH in our population: Hunt-Hess, modified Hunt-Hess, World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), Prognosis on Admission of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (PAASH), and Barrow Aneurysm Institute (BAI) scales.

Methods

This study includes all aSAH cases treated at our institution between June 2019 and December 2020. We developed a retrospective cohort by reviewing medical records and radiologic images performed during hospitalization. The outcome was evaluated using the modified Rankin scale (mRS). It was defined as a poor outcome (mRS 4–5) and mortality (mRS 6). The ROC curves and the area under the curve (AUC) of each of the prognostic scales were calculated to evaluate their prognostic prediction capacity.

Results

A total of 142 patients were diagnosed with aSAH. A poor outcome occurred in 52.1% of the patients, whereas mortality was 27.5%. The AUC of the scales studied was similar and no significant difference was found between them for predicting a poor outcome (P = .709) or mortality (P = .715).

Conclusion

We determined that the prognostic scales for aSAH had a similar predictive value for poor clinical outcomes and mortality in our institution, with no significant difference. Thus, we recommend the most simple and well-known scale used institutionally.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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