呼吸专科治疗肺癌的优势和策略

目的:探讨不同评分系统对慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)患者28 d生存率的预测价值。方法:收集AECOPD患者150例,均进行积极常规救治,采用BAP-65评分、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)及慢性阻塞性肺疾病和支气管哮喘生理评分(CAPS)对28 d生存率进行预测。根据预后将患者分为死亡组12例和存活组138例。结果:死亡组患者APACHEⅡ评分与CAPS评分均明显高于存活组(P0.05),两组BAP-65评分差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。3种评分系统中APACHEⅡ评分对AECOPD患者28 d生存率预测曲线下面积最大,为0.917,且其敏感性及特异性均最大,分别为89.06%及83.88%,CAPS评分与BAP-65评分曲线下面积分别为0.828、0.888,且诊断敏感性及特异性均在70%以上。结论:BAP-65评分、APACHEⅡ评分及CAPS评分对AECOPD患者28 d生存率均有较高的预测价值,且APACHEⅡ评分预测价值最佳。     

不同评分系统对慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重患者28天生存率的预测价值

目的:探讨不同评分系统对慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)患者28 d生存率的预测价值。方法:收集AECOPD患者150例,均进行积极常规救治,采用BAP-65评分、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)及慢性阻塞性肺疾病和支气管哮喘生理评分(CAPS)对28 d生存率进行预测。根据预后将患者分为死亡组12例和存活组138例。结果:死亡组患者APACHEⅡ评分与CAPS评分均明显高于存活组(P0.05),两组BAP-65评分差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。3种评分系统中APACHEⅡ评分对AECOPD患者28 d生存率预测曲线下面积最大,为0.917,且其敏感性及特异性均最大,分别为89.06%及83.88%,CAPS评分与BAP-65评分曲线下面积分别为0.828、0.888,且诊断敏感性及特异性均在70%以上。结论:BAP-65评分、APACHEⅡ评分及CAPS评分对AECOPD患者28 d生存率均有较高的预测价值,且APACHEⅡ评分预测价值最佳。     

两种评分在慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期并呼吸衰竭患者预后中的价值

目的探讨急性生理学与慢性健康状况(APACHEⅡ)评分、慢性阻塞性肺疾病和支气管哮喘生理(CAPS)评分在慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后中的应用价值。方法回顾性分析该院呼吸内科收治的138例AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者,在入院24 h内分别进行APACHEⅡ及CAPS评分,根据存活情况分为死亡组与生存组,比较两组患者两种评分分值;对各自评分进行分组,比较各组死亡率;根据Logistic回归模型与ROC曲线分析评估两种评分对AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭预后判断的校准度与分辨度。结果死亡组与生存组在APACHEⅡ及CAPS评分分值之间存在显著差异(P<0.05);当APACHEⅡ分值≥24分,CAPS分值≥35分时患者病死率较高,与低于该分值组比较差异显著(P<0.05);Logistic回归模型显示APACHEⅡ及CPIS评分对AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭生存预后结局的预测均有较好的校准度;APACHEⅡ评分的曲线下面积在0.9以上,CAPS评分的曲线下面积在0.8以上,都具有较高的分辨能力。结论死亡组APACHEⅡ及CAPS评分均值均高于生存组患者;APACHEⅡ分值≥24分,CAPS分值≥35分时患者病死率较高;APACHEⅡ评分对确定AECOPD并Ⅱ呼吸衰竭患者的生存预测的校准度和分辨度优于CAPS评分。     

BAP-65和CURB-65评分预测AECOPD患者行机械通气的研究

目的探讨BAP-65及CURB-65评分在预测慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)患者行机械通气的应用。方法以呼吸内科、内科ICU病区的171例AECOPD患者为研究对象,比较机械通气患者(MV组)和非机械通气患者(非MV组)的BAP-65和CURB-65评分;构建ROC曲线分析BAP-65和CURB-65评分对AECOPD患者行机械通气的预测价值。结果 MV组患者的BAP-65评分的风险等级和CURB-65评分的分值显著高于非MV组(P0.01);BAP-65和CURB-65评分的ROC曲线下面积(AUROC)均大于0.7,能较好预测AECOPD患者行机械通气,但BAP-65评分(AUROC=0.843)优于CURB-65评分(AUROC=0.728)。结论 BAP-65和CURB-65评分均具有较好的分辨度,BAP-65评分准确性高于CURB-65评分,更适用于AECOPD患者行机械通气的预测。     

三种评分标准对慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后评估价值的探讨

目的 探讨急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分(APACHEⅡ)、临床肺部感染评分(CPIS)和慢性阻塞性肺疾病和支气管哮喘生理评分(CAPS)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后评估的应用价值.方法 回顾性分析138例AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者的临床资料,在入院24小时内分别进行APACHEⅡ、CPIS及CAPS评分,比较不同预后患者3种评分分值的差别;计算每种评分标准不同分值患者的死亡率;根据Logistic回归模型与ROC曲线评估3种评分标准对AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后判断的校准度与分辨度.结果 不同预后患者在APACHEⅡ、CPIS和CAPS评分分值之间比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).当APACHEⅡ分值≥24分,CPIS分值≥7分,CAPS分值≥35分时患者病死率较高(P＜0.05).Logistic回归模型显示,3种评分标准对AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者生存预后结局的预测均有较好的校准度.结论 死亡组患者APACHEⅡ、CPIS和CAPS评分均值均高于生存组患者;APACHEⅡ分值≥24分、CPIS分值≥7分、CAPS分值≥35分时患者病死率较高;APACHEⅡ评分对确定AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者生存预测的校准度和分辨度最高.     

血清肾上腺髓质素原、降钙素原、D-二聚体水平对急诊慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的预测价值

目的分析血清肾上腺髓质素原(pro-ADM)、降钙素原(PCT)、D-二聚体水平对急诊慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重(AECOPD)并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的预测价值。方法选取2017年1月—2018年7月于北京市垂杨柳医院急诊科就诊留观及急诊重症监护病房(EICU)住院的AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者102例,根据28 d存活情况分为存活组71例和死亡组31例。比较两组患者就诊24 h内CURB-65评分、急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)评分及确诊后第1、4天血清pro-ADM、PCT、D-二聚体、C反应蛋白(CRP)水平,绘制ROC曲线以分析确诊后第1天血清pro-ADM、PCT、D-二聚体、CRP水平对急诊AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的预测价值,并根据机械通气情况进行亚组分析。结果 (1)死亡组患者就诊24 h内CURB-65评分、APACHEⅡ评分高于存活组(P0.05)。(2)死亡组患者确诊后第1、4天血清pro-ADM、PCT、D-二聚体水平及确诊后第4天血清CRP水平高于存活组,而确诊后第1天血清CRP水平低于存活组(P0.05)。(3)存活组患者中行机械通气者11例,未行机械通气者60例。存活组患者中是否行机械通气者就诊24 h内CURB-65评分、APACHEⅡ评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);存活组患者中行机械通气者确诊后第1、4天血清pro-ADM水平高于未行机械通气者(P0.05),而存活组患者中是否行机械通气者确诊后第1、4天血清PCT、D-二聚体、CRP水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。(4)ROC曲线显示,确诊后第1天血清pro-ADM、PCT、D-二聚体、CRP水平预测急诊AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.983[95%CI(0.963,1.000)]、0.718[95%CI(0.670,0.819)]、0.918[95%CI(0.863,0.972)]、0.325[95%CI(0.198,0.451)];确诊后第1天血清pro-ADM、PCT、D-二聚体、CRP水平预测28 d存活的急诊AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者机械通气的AUC分别为0.720[95%CI(0.553,0.888)]、0.664[95%CI(0.512,0.817)]、0.651[95%CI(0.493,0.808)]、0.498[95%CI(0.293,0.704)]。结论 28 d死亡的急诊AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者血清pro-ADM、PCT、D-二聚体水平较高,三者对急诊AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的预测价值较高并对28 d存活者机械通气有一定预测价值,因此临床对于血清pro-ADM、PCT、D-二聚体水平尤其是血清pro-ADM水平升高的急诊AECOPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者应引起重视。     

急性生理学及慢性健康状况评价系统Ⅱ评分与慢性阻塞性肺疾病和支气管哮喘生理评分对慢性阻塞性肺疾病并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的预测价值分析

目的分析急性生理学及慢性健康状况评价系统Ⅱ(APACHEⅡ)评分和慢性阻塞性肺疾病和支气管哮喘生理评分(CAPS)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的预测价值。方法选取南通瑞慈医院2011年8月—2015年8月收治的COPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者128例,根据患者预后分为死亡组38例和生存组90例。比较两组患者APACHEⅡ评分、CAPS、机械通气时间及住院时间,分析APACHEⅡ评分、CAPS对COPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的预测价值。结果死亡组患者APACHEⅡ评分和CAPS高于生存组,机械通气时间及住院时间长于生存组(P0.05)。APACHEⅡ评分(r=0.893)、CAPS(r=0.841)均与COPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者病死率呈正相关(P0.05)。APACHEⅡ评分(X1)、CAPS(X2)预测COPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后的直线回归方程分别为Y1=-16.62+0.74X1(χ~2=17.603,P0.05)、Y2=-8.78+0.25X2(χ~2=14.758,P0.05)。绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线发现,APACHEⅡ评分预测COPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者死亡的曲线下面积为0.937〔95%CI(0.878,0.972)〕,当其为26分时灵敏度为91.2%,特异度为84.4%,准确率为86.3%;CAPS预测COPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者死亡的曲线下面积为0.838〔95%CI(0.811,0.943)〕,当其为36分时,灵敏度为84.5%,特异度为71.1%,准确率为73.6%。结论 APACHEⅡ评分和CAPS对COPD并Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者预后均具有较高的预测价值,而APACHEⅡ评分的预测价值优于CAPS。     

综合ICU老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期患者的预后影响因素

目的探讨综合ICU老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)急性加重期(AECOPD)患者的预后影响因素。方法选取2010年1月至2014年10月该院综合ICU科收治入院的112例老年AECOPD患者,根据预后状况分为两组,并对其基本资料进行比较分析。结果死亡组患者的体重指数(BMI)、血清蛋白、p H水平低于存活组,动脉血二氧化碳分压(Pa CO2)、血肌酐水平高于存活组,格拉斯哥昏迷评分低于存活组,急性生理与慢性健康状况评分(APACHE)Ⅱ高于存活组,有创通气率及合并肺心病患者比例高于存活组(均P0.05)。多因素分析发现,老年AECOPD预后影响因素有血清蛋白、血肌酐、格拉斯哥昏迷评分、APACHEⅡ评分、有创通气率及合并肺心病。结论老年AECOPD患者若出现血清蛋白较低、血肌酐较高、格拉斯哥昏迷评分较低、APACHEⅡ评分较高及合并有创通气、肺心病,说明该患者预后状况往往较差,需要引起重视。     

ICU危重症患者APACHEⅡ评分变化率和临床预后的关系

目的：分析ICU危重症患者APACHEⅡ评分变化率（简称APACHEⅡ变化率）和临床预后的关系。方法：选取ICU收治危重症患者94例作为研究对象并跟踪28d,根据28d生存情况分为生存组（66例）和死亡组（28例）两组,收集第1天APACHEⅡ评分（APACHEⅡ1）、第二天APACHEⅡ评分（APACHEⅡ2）资料,计算APACHEⅡ变化率;对比两组患者之间APACHEⅡ1、APACHEⅡ2和APACHEⅡ变化率的差异;采用ROC曲线的方法比较APACHEⅡ1和APACHEⅡ变化率预测临床预后的差异。结果：死亡组患者APACHEⅡ1、APACHEⅡ2高于生存组,而APACHEⅡ变化率低于生存组,差异显著,具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;APACHEⅡ变化率和预后呈负相关性（P＜0.05）;ROC曲线结果显示APACHEⅡ变化率预测总体预后的曲线下面积（AUC）为0.880,高于APACHEⅡ1的曲线下面积0.775,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。APACHEⅡ变化率的最佳界值为0.21（敏感性60.7%,特异性95.5%）。结论：APACHEⅡ变化率对ICU危重症患者临床预后的评估意义高于单纯对APACHEⅡ1的观察。     

ICU危重患者APACHEⅡ评分变化率和临床预后的关系

目的:分析ICU危重症患者APACHEⅡ评分变化率(简称APACHEⅡ变化率)和临床预后的关系。方法:选取ICU危重症患者94例并跟踪28 d,根据28 d生存情况分为生存组(66例)和死亡组(28例),收集第1天APACHEⅡ评分(APACHEⅡ1)、第2天APACHEⅡ评分(APACHEⅡ2)资料,计算APACHEⅡ变化率;比较2组患者APACHEⅡ1、APACHEⅡ2和APACHEⅡ变化率;采用ROC曲线比较APACHEⅡ1和APACHEⅡ变化率预测临床预后的差异。结果:死亡组患者APACHEⅡ1、APACHEⅡ2高于生存组,而APACHEⅡ变化率低于生存组(P0.05);APACHEⅡ变化率与预后呈负相关性(P0.05);ROC曲线结果显示APACHEⅡ变化率预测总体预后的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.880,高于APACHEⅡ1的曲线下面积0.775(P0.05)。APACHEⅡ变化率的最佳界值为0.21(敏感性60.7%,特异性95.5%)。结论:APACHEⅡ变化率对ICU危重症患者临床预后的评估意义高于单纯APACHEⅡ评分。     

高流量吸氧在慢性阻塞性肺疾病合并呼吸衰竭患者中的临床价值

目的观察慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期(AECOPD)合并呼吸衰竭接受有创机械通气患者采用两种序贯脱机方式(无创正压通气与无创正压通气联合高流量吸氧组)的临床疗效。方法将48例60岁以上COPD急性加重期给予有创机械通气的患者,随机分为A组(无创正压通气序贯组)25例和B组(无创正压通气联合高流量吸氧序贯组)23例。两组均给予常规基础治疗。每日对两组患者进行SBT试验联合科室治疗小组根据临床经验评估撤机。撤机后A组给予无创正压通气序贯治疗,B组给予无创正压通气联合高流量吸氧序贯治疗。记录患者一般资料和临床资料(年龄、性别、APACHEⅡ评分、基础疾病数量、SOFA评分),两组序贯治疗方式在拔管后4、8、12、24、48 h患者的生命体征及血气指标(心率、呼吸、收缩压、氧分压、二氧化碳分压),预后指标(有创正压通气使用时间、48 h内再插管率、48 h后再插管率、ICU住院时间、28 d和90 d病死率)。结果两组患者人口学和临床资料,有创机械通气使用时间,48 h内、48 h后再插管率,28 d及90 d病死率P值0.05,没有统计学差异。B组ICU住院时间低于A组,P值0.05,有统计学差异。结论无创正压通气联合高流量吸氧序贯治疗,缩短了ICU住院时间。     

PSI评分和CURB-65评分对急诊慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并肺部感染患者预后的评估价值

【】 目的 研究肺炎严重程度指数(PSI)和 CURB-65评分对于评价慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期( chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation,AECOPD)合并肺部感染患者病情及预后评估的价值。 方法 选取 2014年1月至2015年12月北京市垂杨柳医院急诊科就诊留观及入住EICU的107例AECOPD患者, 随机分为PSI组和CURB-65组。就诊24小时内分别进行CURB-65 和PSI评分。每组再以评分分为低危组、中危组和高危组。以28天为观察终点,分别观察患者的有效率、机械通气率、死亡率,比较各亚组差别。对比研究两种评分系统判断AECOPD患者病情及预后的灵敏性特异性。结果107例AECOPD患者,两种评分系统均显示低中危组的有效率、住院天数、机械通气率、死亡率明显低于高危组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。PSI有效率低中高危组分别为85.01%和58.82%、 25.00%,机械通气发生率PSI低中高危组分别为0%和35.29%、 93.752%。 死亡率PSI 低 中 高危组分别为0%和11.78%、 68.75%。 CURB-65组,有效率低中高危组分别为76.91%和76.92%、 21.73%,机械通气率低中高危组分别为2.7%和15.38%、 56.52%。死亡率分别为 0%和15.38%、 65.21%。低高危组亚组间差异无统计学意义,但中高危组两评分组治疗有效率和机械通气率、年龄比较有统计学差异(P < 0.05) 。用ROC 曲线对两种评分方法对 AECOPD 患者预后预测价值研究发现,采用 CURB-65 评分对 AECOPD 患者的预后绘制ROC 曲线,结果曲线下面积AUC =0．842,采用PSI评分法对 AECOPD 患者的预后绘制ROC 曲线,结果曲线下面积AUC =0．914,两种评分方法的 AUC 值比较差异无显著性,表明两种评分系统均可有效预测 AECOPD 患者预后,且预测准确度基本一致。 结论 PSI和CURB-65 评分系统均能较准确的反映AECOPD患者的病情严重程度和判断预后。但PSI评分系统在预测中危患者时准确度低于CURB-65,CURB-65评分高危患者年龄大于PSI组患者,提示鉴别较年轻患者PSI优于CURB-65,但CURB-65更加简便,可以快速判断患者预后。     

APACHE II Predicts long-term survival in COPD patients admitted to a general medical ward

OBJECTIVE: The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) was developed to predict intensive-care unit (ICU) resource utilization. This study tested APACHE II's ability to predict long-term survival of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) admitted to general medical floors. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted for COPD exacerbation outside the ICU. APACHE II scores were calculated by chart review. Mortality was determined by the Social Security Death Index. We tested the association between APACHE II scores and long-term mortality with Cox regression and logistic regression. PATIENTS: The analysis included 92 patients admitted for COPD exacerbation in two Burlington, Vermont hospitals between January 1995 and June 1996. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In Cox regression, APACHE II score (hazard ratio [HR] 1.76 for each increase in a 3-level categorization, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16 to 2.65) and comorbidity (HR 2.58; 95% CI, 1.36 to 4.88) were associated with long-term mortality (P <.05) in the univariate analysis. After controlling for smoking history, comorbidity, and admission pCO2, APACHE II score was independently associated with long-term mortality (HR 2.19; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.80). In univariate logistic regression, APACHE II score (odds ratio [OR] 2.31; 95% confidence internal [CI] 1.24 to 4.30) and admission pCO2 (OR 4.18; 95% CI, 1.15 to 15.21) were associated with death at 3 years. After controlling for smoking history, comorbidity, and admission pCO2, APACHE II score was independently associated with death at 3 years (OR 2.62; 95% CI, 1.12 to 6.16). CONCLUSION: APACHE II score may be useful in predicting long-term mortality for COPD patients admitted outside the ICU.     

Prognostic value of different scoring models in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome associated with acute COPD exacerbation

Background and objective

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents an increasing healthcare concern as a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Our objective was to predict the outcome of COPD patients associated with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) by scoring models.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed on severe COPD patients within 24 hours of the onset of MODS. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated for patients.

Results

A total of 153 elderly patients were recruited. Compared to 30-day survivors, the number of failing organs and all of the scoring models were significantly higher in 30-day non-survivors. The SOFA showed the highest sensitivity and area under the curve (AUC) for predicting the prognosis of patients with MODS induced by acute exacerbation of COPD. The results of logistic regression indicated that factors that were correlated with the prognosis of COPD included the exacerbation history, SOFA score, number of failing organs, and duration of ICU stay. The value of exacerbation frequency for predicting the outcome of COPD was excellent (AUC: 0.892), with a sensitivity of 0.851 and a specificity of 0.797.

Conclusions

The SOFA score, determined at the onset of MODS in elderly patients with COPD, was a reliable predictor of the prognosis. The exacerbation frequency, number of failing organs, and the SOFA score were risk factors of a poor prognosis, and the exacerbation frequency could also effectively predict the outcome of COPD.     

542例AECOPD住院患者肺栓塞风险和预防分析

目的探讨AECOPD住院患者静脉血栓栓塞症（VTE）的风险和预防需求。方法调查542例次AECOPD住院患者,分析其V．rE的危险因素分布和风险评分。结果VTE危险因素的Kaprini评分在0～1分的比例为0,2分占0．92％,3-4分占10,7％,5～8分占66．4％,〉8分者占22％。需预防性抗凝或采用机械方法的患者比例为86．9％。有人住ICU指征的患者按两种标准均100％需要预防。结论AECOPD患者是VTE的高危人群,需入住ICU的AECOPD患者均需积极预防。     

肠内营养喂养不耐受与慢阻肺急性加重期机械通气患者并发ICU获得性衰弱的相关性研究

目的探讨肠内营养喂养不耐受(FI)与慢性阻塞性肺疾病(简称慢阻肺)急性加重期机械通气患者并发ICU获得性衰弱(ICU-AW)的相关性。方法收集254例慢阻肺急性加重期患者作为观察对象,根据是否发生FI分为FI组132例和非FI组122例,统计肠内营养FI和ICU-AW发生情况。采用生存分析中的Kaplan-Meier(K-M)生存曲线,分析肠内营养FI对慢阻肺急性加重期机械通气患者并发7d ICU-AW的影响。采用Logistic回归分析慢阻肺急性加重期机械通气患者发生FI的影响因素。结果慢阻肺急性加重期机械通气患者肠内营养FI和ICU-AW的发生率分别为52.0%和59.8%。K-M分析显示,FI组患者7d内ICU-AW发生率高于非FI组(P<0.05)。Logistic回归分析显示,年龄≥65岁(OR=5.998,95%CI:3.057~11.766)、APACHEⅡ评分(OR=1.150,95%CI:1.080~1.225)、高血糖(OR=2.090,95%CI:1.091~4.005)、放置鼻胃管(OR=2.098,95%CI:1.097~4.015)、床头未抬高≥30°(OR=4.151,95%CI:1.951~8.832)和营养液输注速度(OR=1.049,95%CI:1.019~1.080)均是慢阻肺急性加重期机械通气患者发生FI的危险因素(P均<0.05)。结论慢阻肺急性加重期机械通气患者肠内营养FI和ICU-AW发生率高,FI会增加其ICU-AW发生风险。年龄≥65岁、APACHEⅡ评分、高血糖、放置鼻胃管、床头未抬高≥30°和营养液输注速度均是慢阻肺急性加重期机械通气患者发生FI的危险因素,应根据危险因素进行针对性干预。     

A new measure of acute physiological derangement for patients with exacerbations of obstructive airways disease: the COPD and Asthma Physiology Score

BACKGROUND: Decisions about how to treat patients with acute exacerbations of obstructive airways disease-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma or mixed diagnoses-often require an understanding of prognosis. This depends on the severity of the acute deterioration and the patient's functional reserve. There are currently no validated disease-specific scores that measure the severity of the acute exacerbation. OBJECTIVE: To develop an acute physiology score for exacerbations of obstructive airways disease. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a high-quality clinical database, the Case Mix Programme Database. SETTING: One hundred and sixty-eight adult, general critical care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. RESULTS: A total of 8527 patients with obstructive airways disease were identified with a mean (SD) age of 65.9 (9.7) years and hospital mortality of 35.5%. The COPD and Asthma Physiology Score (CAPS) was developed using logistic regression. The CAPS included eight variables: heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, pH, sodium, urea, creatinine, albumin and white blood cell count. The score had fair discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.718. This performance was reproduced in a further validation dataset of 7957 patients. The discrimination of the CAPS in these validation data exceeded that of the acute physiology scores from APACHE II and III and the physiological components of SAPS II. CONCLUSION: The CAPS can be used to estimate the prognostic impact of physiological derangements accompanying an acute exacerbation of obstructive airways disease and has the potential for even greater predictive performance when combined with measures of a patient's functional reserve.     

APACHⅡ评分在高龄COPD患者急性加重期的临床价值

目的比较分析APACHEⅡ评分在高龄慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者急性加重期的病情及预后的评估价值。方法分析我院收治的共279例高龄慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者(≥70岁)的临床资料,随访30天。所有病例均逐一采用APACHEⅡ评分分别行入院时、治疗后的动态评分,按预后分为存活组和死亡组,按不同治疗方法分为药物治疗组、无创通气组和有创通气组。比较各组的APACHEⅡ评分。结果入院时存活组患者,明显低于死亡/复发组的APACHEⅡ评分,治疗后存活组的APACHEⅡ评分降低为(9.86±1.46),病情也明显缓解。入院时药物治疗组(193例)的APACHEⅡ评分为(9.97±1.76)、无创通气组(61例)APACHEⅡ评分为(15.20±1.25),有创通气组(25例)评分为(21.16±2.84),APACHEⅡ评分>24分的患者病情较重,住院时间长,预后差。结论 APACHEⅡ评分有助于高龄慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期患者的病情轻重的评估及预后评价并指导临床治疗。     

Predicting outcome from intensive care for patients with rheumatologic diseases.

OBJECTIVE. To evaluate 2 prognostic scoring systems in patients with an underlying rheumatologic diagnosis admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS. A retrospective case series review, carried out at a medical ICU in a military referral hospital. All adult ICU admissions with a known rheumatologic diagnosis were evaluated during 28 consecutive months. There were 48 ICU admissions available for review in 36 patients (1.33 ICU admissions/patient) during the study period. All patients were assigned an APACHE II and TISS score based on the first 24 h of ICU admission. RESULTS. Eleven ICU admissions resulted in patient death (22.9%) and the remaining 37 admissions (77.1%) in patient survival and hospital discharge. Overall patient mortality was 30.6% for the study population. The APACHE II and TISS scores were each significantly different for survivor and nonsurvivor subgroups (APACHE II p less than 0.0001; TISS p less than 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS. In this group of patients evaluated at a single institution both the APACHE II and TISS scoring systems allowed subgroup separation between survivors and nonsurvivors of ICU admission. However, these scoring methods demonstrated limitations in terms of outcome prediction when applied to the individual patient.