Ranson评分与Glasgow评分对急性胰腺炎严重程度及预后评估的对比分析

目的探讨Ranson评分与Glasgow评分对急性胰腺炎(acute pancreatitis,AP)疾病严重程度及预后预测价值的差异。方法回顾性地收集自2014年7月至2016年7月230例AP病人的临床资料,结合中国胰腺炎诊治指南(2007)将病人分为轻症胰腺炎(mild acute pancreatitis,MAP)组、重症胰腺炎(severe acute pancreatitis,SAP)组。按照各评分系统相应评分标准对病人进行Ranson评分和Glasgow评分。比较组间病人一般临床资料及Ranson评分、Glasgow评分的差异,ROC曲线比较两评分系统对AP疾病严重程度及预后预测价值的差异。结果 MAP组与SAP组病人一般情况相比差异无统计学意义(P均0.05),而SAP组病人Ranson评分、Glasgow评分结果相对较高,与MAP组相比差异有统计学意义(P均0.05)。Ranson评分预测SAP的敏感性和特异性分别为61.16%和66.52%,Glasgow评分预测SAP的敏感性和特异性分别为44.40%和77.32%,两者预测SAP的曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.69和0.67,组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05);Ranson评分预测AP病人住院期间死亡的敏感性和特异性分别为75.00%和63.55%、Glasgow洋分预测AP病人住院期间死亡的敏感性和特异性分别为62.53%和75.26%,而两者预测AP病人住院期间死亡的AUC分别为0.85和0.66,组间差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论Ranson评分在AP病人疾病严重程度和预后判断方面较Glasgow评分具有更高的稳定性和可信度,值得临床进一步研究证实。     

APACHE O评分系统对急性胰腺炎预后的评估价值

急性胰腺炎是一种常见的外科急腹症,病情复杂．预后差．APACHE Ⅱ评分系统是目前一较全面的多冈素预后评分系统,但仍存在一定局限性。APACHEO评分系统（APACHEⅡ评分加肥胖指标评分）是近年提出的一种急性胰腺炎预后评分系统日,本文旨在通过比较APACHE O评分与APACHEⅡ评分对急性重症胰腺炎的判断能力,对急性胰腺炎局部、全身并发症及死亡率的预测价值,旨在明确APACHE O评分系统对急性胰腺炎预后的评估价值.     

A comparison of ICU mortality prediction using the APACHE II scoring system and artificial neural networks

The aim of this study was to compare the ability of artificial neural networks and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score to predict mortality in adult intensive care units. The same physiological variables were used in both predictive models to predict hospital mortality from a data set of 8796 patients collected from 26 adult intensive care units in the United Kingdom and Ireland as part of the Intensive Care Society study. The results from the two models were compared with the actual outcome. The overall prediction accuracy and the overall goodness-of-fit of all the models were assessed. Both predictive models showed similar goodness-of-fit and prediction discrimination. The overall predictive and classification performance of the artificial neural network developed matched and in some aspects was better than that of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II.     

Prediction of outcome in acute pancreatitis: a comparative study of APACHE II, clinical assessment and multiple factor scoring systems

The APACHE II severity of disease classification system has been examined prospectively in 160 patients with acute pancreatitis. Using clinical and simple laboratory data APACHE II was able to provide useful discrimination between uncomplicated, complicated and fatal attacks within a few hours of admission. Peak APACHE II scores (recorded during the first 3 days) had a prognostic accuracy similar to the multiple factor scoring systems, but then incurred a similar delay. Patients could be graded according to their risk of death or of developing a major complication; no deaths occurred in patients with a peak APACHE II score less than 10. APACHE II can be repeated daily, uncomplicated attacks demonstrating falling scores in association with clinical improvement, in contrast to the rising scores associated with clinical deterioration in those dying early. APACHE II appears to reflect any continuing disease activity and may prove a useful means of monitoring the course of the illness and response to therapy.     

Severity scoring for prognostication in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: comparative analysis of the Ranson score and the APACHE III score

BACKGROUND: Despite a paucity of validation, the Ranson score is still the most popular method for gauging the severity of pancreatitis. HYPOTHESES: The Ranson score more accurately predicts outcomes in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) when compared with APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) III scores, and the individual components of the Ranson score differ in their capacities to predict outcome in patients with SAP. METHODS: Patients admitted with SAP to a university surgical intensive care unit (ICU) were studied prospectively. Each component and the total Ranson score were recorded. Also recorded were the APACHE II and III scores. These Ranson variables were compared using univariate analysis of variance for mortality, need for operative debridement, and need for an ICU stay for longer than 7 days. Significant variables were then analyzed by a multivariate analysis of variance to assess independent predictors of mortality, the need for debridement, and prolonged length of stay. Data are given as the mean +/- SEM. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (21.1% mortality), aged 61.8 +/- 1.9 years, were studied. The mean APACHE III score was 48.2 +/- 3.3, and the mean ICU stay was 10.4 +/- 2.1 days. The number of positive Ranson variables was significantly higher in nonsurvivors compared with survivors (5.6 +/- 0.5 vs 3.4 +/- 0.2; P<.001), as were the APACHE III score (76.9 +/- 9.9 vs 40.5 +/- 2.5; P<.001) and ICU stay (24.9 +/- 7.5 vs 76.5 +/- 1.9 days; P =.002). Ranson variables that predicted mortality included values for blood urea nitrogen, calcium, base deficit, and fluid sequestration. CONCLUSIONS: The Ranson score remains a valid predictor of outcomes in patients with SAP, and individual Ranson variables determined 48 hours after hospital admission predicted adverse outcomes more accurately than early Ranson variables in patients with SAP.     

Experience with the APACHE II severity of disease scoring system in predicting outcome in a surgical intensive therapy unit

The APACHE II system, a severity of disease scoring system, has been used to identify intensive therapy unit patients in whom prolonged treatment is unlikely to be beneficial. Fifty-nine surgical patients admitted to the intensive care unit over a 6-month period underwent a single APACHE II scoring in the first 24 h. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 34%. The range of APACHE II scores was 3-29. The survivors had significantly lower scores (mean 11) than those who died (mean 19). Most patients (53%) had a score greater than or equal to 11 to less than or equal to 22 and had an equal chance of living or dying. No patient with a score greater than 22 survived and at this level the APACHE II score was highly specific (100%) but with a very low sensitivity (30%). APACHE II scores greater than 22 may be useful as an adjunct to a clinical decision to withhold treatment, but scores below that level lack the specificity and sensitivity to be of any value.     

A comparison of APACHE II and a clinical sickness score

The aim of this study was to compare the predictive power of a simple illness severity score (Clinical Sickness Score) to that of APACHE II in a District General Hospital intensive therapy unit. A prospective comparison was carried out on 97 consecutive adult patients whose severity of illness was scored one hour after admission using both the Clinical Sickness Score and APACHE II. Intensive Therapy Unit and hospital outcomes were recorded for each patient. The Clinical Sickness Score and APACHE II identified survivors and nonsurvivors with similar power (p less than 0.001). There was a highly significant correlation between the two scoring systems for hospital survivors and nonsurvivors together (r = 0.5418, r2 = 0.28, p = less than 0.0001) and for hospital survivors alone (r = 0.6102, r2 = 0.37, p = 0.0001). Correlation for hospital nonsurvivors was not significant (r = 0.1629, r2 = 0.027, p = 0.3134). The positive predictive values of APACHE II were between 5% and 10% more sensitive than the Clinical Sickness Score for hospital outcome. Admission Clinical Sickness Score and APACHE II scores had similar predictive power in this study.     

Prospective comparison of clinical judgment and APACHE II score in predicting the outcome in critically ill surgical patients.

Prospective identification of patients who will not survive has been proposed as a means of limiting utilization of medical resources including critical care. This study prospectively compared prediction of outcome for surgical ICU patients by clinical assessment and the APACHE II score. Five hundred seventy-eight patients were assessed within 24 hours of admission by the ICU attending physician and predicted to live or die. An APACHE II score was calculated in that same time period. All data were stored in a data base and compared with actual SICU outcome. There were 40 deaths in 578 patients (6.9%). The clinical assessment had an overall accuracy of 95.2% vs. 90.9% for APACHE II. The Pearson correlation coefficients for the two methods of prediction were 0.59 for clinical assessment and 0.44 for APACHE II. Predictive power was not greatly improved by combining both prediction methods. Over 40% of patients predicted to die by both methods actually survived. This study demonstrates that clinical assessment is superior to APACHE II in predicting outcome in this group of surgical patients, although the difference is small. In addition, this study suggests that neither clinical assessment nor the APACHE II score, when obtained within 24 hours of admission, is very reliable at predicting which surgical ICU patients will die.     

Evaluation of predicted and actual length of stay in 22 Scottish intensive care units using the APACHE III system. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation

The most recent edition of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation provides a prediction of intensive care unit length of stay in addition to the probability of hospital mortality. Intensive care length of stay is an important determinant of intensive care costs and may be an important indicator of quality of care. Data were collected from 22 Scottish intensive care units over a 2-year period to allow comparison of actual intensive care unit length of stay with that predicted by the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III system. Correlation between actual and predicted stay for individual patients was poor. However, performance of the model for patients, grouped either by predicted length of stay or by intensive care unit, indicated that the model stratified patient groups appropriately while demonstrating a consistent bias. Length of stay in Scottish intensive care units was found to be consistently lower than that predicted by a model which is based on intensive care practice in the USA. Variations in severity of illness in intensive care unit populations cannot readily explain differences in intensive care unit length of stay. The availability of a model capable of predicting length of intensive care stay, based on data reflecting practice in the UK, would compliment current methods of assessing effectiveness of intensive care.     

三种器官功能不全评分系统对重症脓毒症患者的预后评估

目的 比较多脏器功能不全评分(MODS)、序贯性脏器衰竭评价评分(SOFA)和Logistic脏器功能不全评分(LODS)3种评分系统对重症脓毒症患者院内病死率的预测能力.方法 将2004年12月至2007年11月入住ICU的重症脓毒症患者403例纳入本研究中,计算入住ICU 24h内(初始值)及ICU期间最高MODS、SOFA和LODS,应用3种评分系统计算出病死概率并与实际病死率比较.通过受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下的面积,比较3种评分系统对重症脓毒症患者的预后分辨力.结果 403例患者MODS、SOFA、LODS的初始值和急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHE Ⅱ)的ROC下而积分别为0.725、0.787、0.811和0.770;MODS、SOFA、LODS的最高值预测预后的能力均优于其初始值(P<0.01);LODS和SOFA(初始值、最高值)的分辨力均高于相应的MODS(P<0.01),而初始或最高的LODS和相应的SOFA间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).APACHEⅡ的ROC下面积低于仞始LODS(P<0.01),与初始SOFA和MODA无统计学差异(P>0.05).结论 MODS、SOFA和LODS对重症脓毒症患者死亡或生存的分辨力均较好,LODS的最高值对重症脓毒症预后的预测能力最强.     

One year''s experience with the APACHE II severity of disease classification system in a general intensive care unit

The APACHE II sickness score was applied prospectively for one year in a general intensive care unit in Saudi Arabia. Two hundred and ten patients were studied, 66 of whom died in hospital. The mean APACHE II score of survivors was 11 (SD 7.1) and of non-survivors, 25.3 (SD 8.8). The mean Risk of Death was 13.3% (SD 13.1) for the survivors and 47.2% (SD 25.8) for non-survivors. The differences in APACHE score and Risk of Death between survivors and non-survivors are highly significant (p less than 0.0005 for both). No patient survived who had a Risk of Death greater than 60% and none died with a Risk of Death less than 7%. The sensitivity of the APACHE II system in predictions of death can be improved if the scores on the day of admission and on the 3rd day are taken into account.     

Usefulness of the abbreviated injury score and the injury severity score in comparison to the Glasgow Coma Scale in predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Assessment of injury severity is important in the management of patients with brain trauma. We aimed to analyze the usefulness of the head abbreviated injury score (AIS), the injury severity score (ISS), and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) as measures of injury severity and predictors of outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Data were prospectively collected from 410 patients with TBI. AIS, ISS, and GCS were recorded at admission. Subjects' outcomes after TBI were measured using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) at 12 months postinjury. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Outcome information was obtained from 270 patients (66%). ISS was the best predictor of GOS-E (rs = -0.341, p < 0.001), followed by GCS score (rs = 0.227, p < 0.001), and head AIS (rs = -0.222, p < 0.001). When considered in combination, GCS score and ISS modestly improved the correlation with GOS-E (R = 0.335, p < 0.001). The combination of GCS score and head AIS had a similar effect (R = 0.275, p < 0.001). Correlations were stronger from patients 8). CONCLUSIONS: GCS score, AIS, and ISS are weakly correlated with 12-month outcome. However, anatomic measures modestly outperform GCS as predictors of GOS-E. The combination of GCS and AIS/ISS correlate with outcome better than do any of the three measures alone. Results support the addition of anatomic measures such as AIS and ISS in clinical studies of TBI. Additionally, most of the variance in outcome is not accounted for by currently available measures of injury severity.     

Intra-institutional prediction of outcome after cardiac surgery: comparison between a locally derived model and the EuroSCORE

Objective: To construct models for predicting mortality, morbidity and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay after cardiac surgery and to compare the performance of these models with that of the EuroSCORE in two independent validation databases. Methods: Clinical data on 4592 cardiac surgery patients operated between 1992 and 1996 were retrospectively collected. In order to derive predictive models and to validate them, the patient population was randomly divided into a derivation database (n=3061) and a validation database (n=1531). Variables that were significant in univariate analyses were entered into a backward stepwise logistic regression model. The outcome was defined as mortality within 30 days after surgery, predefined morbidity, and the length of ICU stay lasting >2 days. In addition to the retrospective database, the models were validated also in a prospectively collected database of cardiac surgical patients operated in 1998–1999 (n=821). The EuroSCORE was tested in two validation databases, i.e. the retrospective and prospective one. Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit was used to study the calibration of the predictive models. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to study the discrimination ability of the models. Results: The overall mortality in the retrospective and the prospective data was 2 and 1%, and morbidity 22 and 18%, respectively. The created predictive models fitted well in the validation databases. Our models and the EuroSCORE were equally good in discriminating patients. Thus, in the prospective validation database, the mean areas under the ROC curve for our models and for the EuroSCORE were similar, i.e. 0.84 and 0.77 for mortality, 0.74 and 0.74 for morbidity, and 0.81 and 0.79 for the length of intensive care unit stay lasting for 2 days or more, respectively. Conclusions: Our models and the EuroSCORE were equally good in discriminating the patients in respect to outcome. However, our model provided also well calibrated estimation of the probability of prolonged ICU stay for each patient. As was originally suggested, the EuroSCORE may be an appropriate tool in categorizing cardiac surgical patients into various subgroups in interinstitutional comparisons. Our models may have additive value especially in resource allocation and quality assurance purposes for local use.     

Improved prediction of outcome in patients with severe acute pancreatitis by the APACHE II score at 48 hours after hospital admission compared with the APACHE II score at admission. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation

HYPOTHESIS: The 48-hour APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score is a better predictor of pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, and mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis than the score at hospital admission. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of 125 patients with acute pancreatitis. SETTING: A tertiary public teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with severe acute pancreatitis as defined by 3 or more Ranson criteria or a hospital stay of longer than 6 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, and mortality. RESULTS: A significant association was found between the 48-hour score and the presence of pancreatic necrosis (P<.001), organ failure (P =.001), and death (P<.001). By contrast, the APACHE II score at admission was significantly associated only with the presence of organ failure (P =.007). Deteriorating APACHE II scores over 48 hours were significantly associated with a fatal outcome (P =.03). The combined APACHE II score (defined as the sum of the admission and 48-hour scores) was significantly higher among nonsurvivors than survivors (P<.001), and was strongly associated with the presence of pancreatic necrosis (P =.001) and organ failure (P<.001). The 48-hour and combined scores accurately predicted outcome in 93% of the patients compared with 75% by the admission score. CONCLUSIONS: The 48-hour APACHE II score has improved predictive value compared with the admission score for identifying patients with severe acute pancreatitis who have a poor outcome. A deteriorating APACHE II score at 48 hours after admission may identify patients at risk for an adverse outcome.     

Evaluation of high protein intake to improve clinical outcome and nutritional status for patients with burns: a systematic review

Background and aimPatients with severe burns undergo a local and systemic response to the injury. As part of this response the patient becomes hypermetabolic. Current guidelines advise high protein intakes to counteract the catabolic response to burns, but this appears to be based on minimal experimental evidence. Hence the aim of this review was to examine the evidence for improvements in nutritional status and clinical outcome with the administration of high protein intakes for patients with burns.MethodsEight databases were searched for clinical trials with burn patients receiving two or more levels of protein intake at or above the level recommended for healthy individuals (0.75 g/kg/d) and presenting results for at least one of the following pre-defined outcomes: nitrogen balance, length of stay, weight change, survival, physical therapy index, protein fractional synthetic rate, immunological measurements, bacteraemic days, systemic antibiotic days and net protein synthesis.ResultsSix studies were included, 4 of which were randomized trials. All had major methodological limitations, in particular none was blinded. There was too much heterogeneity in study design, patient characteristics and the timing and magnitude of the interventions to justify formal meta-analysis. There was no reliable evidence of improvement in nitrogen balance, but there was some evidence of increased weight gain on higher protein diets. One small study reported an increase in survival and significant improvements in infection rates and some indicators of immune function in children. Length of stay was not significantly improved. There was weak evidence of an improvement in muscle strength and endurance but no significant increase in protein synthesis in muscle or skin, or net protein synthesis in the whole body.ConclusionThere is currently only very weak evidence to justify administering high protein diets to patients following burns.     

Extracranial insults and outcome in patients with acute head injury--relationship to the Glasgow Coma Scale

Hypoxia and hypotension are extracranial insults known to have an adverse effect on the outcome of patients with acute head injury. Arterial oxygen tension, blood pressure and the Glasgow Coma Score on admission of 67 patients seen over a 6-month period were correlated with the outcome at 6 months. With a given level of consciousness the presence of an extracranial insult resulted in a worse outcome than would be predicted. The combination of hypoxia and hypotension was uniformly fatal as was the presence of severe respiratory dysfunction.     

JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: epidemiology, etiology, natural history, and outcome predictors in acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is a common disease with an annual incidence of between 5 and 80 people per 100 000 of the population. The two major etiological factors responsible for acute pancreatitis are alcohol and cholelithiasis (gallstones). The proportion of patients with pancreatitis caused by alcohol or gallstones varies markedly in different countries and regions. The incidence of acute alcoholic pancreatitis is considered to be associated with high alcohol consumption. Although the incidence of alcoholic pancreatitis is much higher in men than in women, there is no difference in sexes in the risk involved after adjusting for alcohol intake. Other risk factors include endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, surgery, therapeutic drugs, HIV infection, hyperlipidemia, and biliary tract anomalies. Idiopathic acute pancreatitis is defined as acute pancreatitis in which the etiological factor cannot be specified. However, several studies have suggested that this entity includes cases caused by other specific disorders such as microlithiasis. Acute pancreatitis is a potentially fatal disease with an overall mortality of 2.1%–7.8%. The outcome of acute pancreatitis is determined by two factors that reflect the severity of the illness: organ failure and pancreatic necrosis. About half of the deaths in patients with acute pancreatitis occur within the first 1–2 weeks and are mainly attributable to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). Depending on patient selection, necrotizing pancreatitis develops in approximately 10%–20% of patients and the mortality is high, ranging from 14% to 25% of these patients. Infected pancreatic necrosis develops in 30%–40% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and the incidence of MODS in such patients is high. The recurrence rate of acute pancreatitis is relatively high: almost half the patients with acute alcoholic pancreatitis experience a recurrence. When the gallstones are not treated, the risk of recurrence in gallstone pancreatitis ranges from 32% to 61%. After recovering from acute pancreatitis, about one-third to one-half of acute pancreatitis patients develop functional disorders, such as diabetes mellitus and fatty stool; the incidence of chronic pancreatitis after acute pancreatitis ranges from 3% to 13%. Nevertheless, many reports have shown that most patients who recover from acute pancreatitis regain good general health and return to their usual daily routine. Some authors have emphasized that endocrine function disorders are a common complication after severe acute pancreatitis has been treated by pancreatic resection.     

A targeted initiative to discharge surgical patients earlier in the day is associated with decreased length of stay and improved hospital throughput

Background

The timing of inpatient discharges can impact hospital throughput with later discharges leading to decreased patient satisfaction, increased length of stay (LOS), and longer boarding times.