应用动态APACHE Ⅱ评分指导门静脉高压症外科治疗

目的 应用．APACHEII连续评分判断门静脉高压症合并上消化道出血患者不同手术方式的预后。方法 对本院2002．1～2003．12间门静脉高压症合并上消化道出血手术的47例患者，术前、术后1、3、5、7d APACHEⅡ连续评分，比较死亡组和非死亡组、断流手术组与断流加分流手术组(联合组)预后、死亡率与评分值关系。结果 47例患者中断流手术33例，分流手术14例。死亡组术后．APACHEII连续评分逐日上升或居高不下且与生存组有显著差异；断流组术前评分低于联合手术组但无显著差异，而术后1、3d断流组评分显著低于联合手术组，术后第5、7d两组评分无显著性差异表现；断流组的死亡率小于联合手术组，但无显著性差异；利用APACHEII术后死亡危险性R公式对患者术前、术后1、3、5和7d．APACHEⅡ死亡危险系数评估，提示断流和联合手术两组不同时段的APACHEⅡ死亡危险性预测数中术后7d的数值与实际发生数最为接近。结论 动态APACHEⅡ评分适用于门静脉高压合并上消化道手术预后的评估；断流术与联合手术早期评分有差异，5d后无显著差异，且两者死亡率无显著差异；术后第7d APACHEⅡ死亡危险性预测数值与实际发生数最为接近。     

POSSUM评分系统的临床应用

POSSUM评分系统由Copeland等于1991年建立;利用患者的术前生理评分和术中的手术评分来预测患者的手术死亡率和并发症发生率,以评估手术风险。经过多年的临床应用和改进,POSSUM评分系统对于手术风险评估的价值得到肯定,现已被广泛地应用于外科各领域的手术风险评估中。     

腹部外科危重病人APACHEⅡ应用和救治体会

目的　探讨APACHEⅡ评分系统在腹部外科危重病人中的应用价值 ,总结腹部外科继发MODS危重病人的救治经验。方法　回顾性分析 86例APACHEⅡ评分 >2 0分的腹部外科病人的病历资料 ,评定入选病人的脏器衰竭情况 ,计算全组病人MODS的发生率 ,比较继发和未继发MODS病人的死亡率。结果　全组病人死亡率 6 3.95 % ;继发MODS病人死亡率 70 .1 5 % ;未继发MODS病人死亡率 4 2 .1 1 % ;两者相比有显著性差异 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论　APACHEⅡ评分 >2 0分病人属危、重病人 ,预防和治疗MODS是改善腹部外科危重病病人预后的关键。肺脏是MODS发生最早和最常见器官 ,适时的机械通气可望改善危重病人的预后 ,合理营养支持可巩固前期治疗效果     

重症急性胰腺炎APACHEⅡ评分的应用价值

目的探讨APACHEⅡ评分在预测重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)严重度和预后中的作用.方法采用APACHEⅡ评分系统对52例SAP患者进行评分分析. 结果 SAP患者APACHEⅡ评分均值为(16.60±9.07)(8～40)分.其中分值为SAPⅡ级高于SAPⅠ级、死亡组高于存活组(均Ρ< 0.01).随着分值的增高,SAP的预测死亡风险率和实际病死率呈逐渐上升趋势(Ρ<0.01);且后两者之间呈正相关关系 (r=0.91, Ρ<0.01).结论 APACHEⅡ评分系统对评估SAP病情危重程度及预后具有参考价值.     

胃肠外科重症APACHEⅡ评分的临床意义

采用前瞻性研究对１９９２年１２月至１９９５年９月期间胃肠外科入院需要进入ＳＩＣＵ监护和治疗的２４４例病人进行了急性生理学和慢性健康关平分。ＡＰＡＣＨＥⅡ评分统一在入ＳＩＣＵ第一个２４小时进行，所有闰例随访至出院工死亡，记录每例轩归，并与ＡＰＡＣＨＥⅡ总分作相关性分析。     

APACHEⅡ评分在ICU病人中的应用

ＡＰＡＣＨＥⅡ评分在ＩＣＵ病人中的应用梁建业，张振伟，马志民，高杰，晁彦公目前国际上最广泛使用的用于评定ＩＣＵ治疗效能、护理质量、病人预后及资源合理利用的标准的病情分类评价方法是急性生理学和慢性健康状态评价系统（ａｃｕｔｅｐｈｙｓｉｏｌｏｇｙａｎｄｃ...     

急性坏死性胰腺炎APACHEⅡ评分的临床意义

目的：探讨ＡＰＡＣＨＥⅡ评分在急性死性胰腺炎（ＡＮＰ）治疗中的意义，方法；对１９８７年８月～１９９７年５月间我院外科收治的７４例急性坏死性胰腺炎（ＡＮＰ）进行急性生理学和慢性健康状况评分（ＡＰＡＣＨＥⅡ）评分较依入院后２４小时内的情况进行，所有病列均随访至出院或死亡，并记录每例转归，结果：对ＡＰＡＣＨＥⅡ评分结果以１２例为界，分为高分，低分两组，高分线２０例，并发器官衰竭１５例，病死率５０％，低分     

APACHEⅡ评分对普外危重病监护的应用价值

应用ＡＰＡＣＨＥⅡ评分对我院ＳＩＣＵ１９９１年５月－１９９５年９月间连续的普外危重病１８２例严重度进行评估。用死亡率预测方程（ＭＰＭ）判定预后，结果显示平均ＡＰＡＣＨＥⅡ评分１８．２２±５．６分，预测病死率和实际病死率呈正相关（３１．３％ｖｓ３４．６％，γ＝０．９８），预测略低于实际（Ｐ〉０．０５）。２７例肝功能障碍者平均积分为２０．８±４．６分，预测病死率显著低于实际（３７．５％ｖｓ７０．４％，     

胰腺癌外科治疗经验

胰腺癌是腹腔脏器癌肿中最难治好的恶性肿瘤。我院外科自六十年代至今已治疗胰腺癌近400例,其中72％为胰头癌,作胰癌根治性切除术140例,作姑息性手术180例。根治性切除手术死亡率在六十年代为16％,七十年代为10％,八十年代以后为5％。手术并发症在60年代为57％70年代为48％,八十年代以后为30％。手术后5年生存率在六十年代为0％,七十年代为3％,八十年代为8％。我们的经验有以下几方面:     

POSSUM评分预测胃肠道肿瘤患者术后并发症发生率和死亡率的价值

目的探讨POSSUM评分系统评估胃肠道肿瘤患者手术后并发症发生率和死亡率的临床价值。方法对171例胃肠道肿瘤患者分别在术后立即进行生理学和手术侵袭度评分,预测术后发生并发症和死亡的危险性,同时观察术后并发症发生率和死亡率的实际值,并与预测值进行比较。结果POSSUM评分预测并发症发生例数为75例,与实际并发症发生的96例比较,差异无显著性意义(P=0.3529)。POSSUM评分预测死亡例数为22例,与实际死亡的17例比较,差异也无显著性意义(P=0.3326)。结论POSSUM评分能较好地评估胃肠道肿瘤手术的预后。     

Analysis of POSSUM score and postoperative morbidity in patients with rectal cancer undergoing surgery

Background  The Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality andmorbidity (POSSUM) and later modifications (P-POSSUM y CR-POSSUM) have been used to predictmorbidity and mortality rates among patients with rectal cancer undergoing surgery. These calculations needsome adjustment, however. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of POSSUM to a group ofpatients with rectal cancer undergoing surgery, analysing surgical morbidity by means of several variables. Methods   between January 1995 and December 2004, 273 consecutive patients underwent surgery forrectal cancer. Information was gathered about the patients, tumour and therapy. To assess the predictioncapacity of POSSUM, subgroups for analysis were created according to variables related to operativemorbidity and mortality. Results  The global morbidity rate was 23.6% (31.2% predicted by POSSUM). The mortality rate was 0.7%(6.64, 1.95 and 2.08 predicted by POSSUM, P-POSSUM and CR-POSSUM respectively). POSSUMpredictions may be more accurate for patients younger than 51 years, older than 70 years, with low anaesthetic risk (ASA I/II), DUKES stage C and D, surgery duration of less than 180 minutes and for thosereceiving neoadjuvant therapy. Conclusion  POSSUM is a good instrument to make results between different institutions and publicationcomparable. We found prediction errors for some variables related to morbidity. Modifications of surgicalvariables and specifications for neoadjuvant therapy as well as physiological variables including life stylemay improve future prediction of surgical risk. More research is needed to identify further potential riskfactors for surgical complications.     

The impact of low-risk intensive care unit admissions on mortality probabilities by SAPS II, APACHE II and APACHE III

A large proportion of intensive care unit patients are low-risk admissions. Mortality probabilities generated by predictive systems may not accurately reflect the mortality experienced by subpopulations of critically ill patients. We prospectively assessed the impact of low-risk admissions (mortality risk < 10%) on the mortality estimates generated by three prognostic models. We studied 1497 consecutive admissions to a general intensive care unit. The performance of the three models for subgroups and the whole population was analysed. The proportions of patients designated as low risk varied with the model and differences in model performance were most pronounced for these patients. The APACHE II mortality ratios (1.32 vs. 1.19) did not differ for low- and higher risk patients, but mortality ratios generated by APACHE III (2.38 vs. 1.23) and SAPS II (2.19 vs. 1.16) were nearly two-fold greater. Calibration for higher risk patients was similar for all three models but the APACHE III system calibrated worse than the other models for low-risk patients. This may have contributed to the poorer overall calibration of the APACHE III system (Hosmer-Lemeshow C-test: APACHE III chi(2) = 329; APACHE II chi(2) = 42; SAPS II chi(2) = 62). Imperfect characterisation of the large proportion of low-risk intensive care unit admissions may contribute to the deterioration of the models' predictive accuracies for the intensive care population as a whole.     

APACHE II, data accuracy and outcome prediction

From review of 122 intensive care charts, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II points were determined for eight physiological values. Using a strict interpretation of APACHE II criteria, an average of 20.6% of these points were higher and 6.7% lower than the points entered originally into an intensive care database. The resulting 1.73 points mean increase in APACHE II score increased predicted mortality from 24.8% to 27.8% and decreased the mortality ratio (observed hospital deaths ÷ predicted deaths) from 1.52 (95% confidence interval: 1.11–2.03) to 1.35 (95% confidence interval: 0.99–1.81). There were few errors entering the data recorded on the audit form into the intensive care unit database with an optical mark reader and keyboard. Inaccuracy and inconsistency in data collection must be excluded before differences in mortality ratios are ascribed to intensive care unit performance.     

POSSUM: a re-evaluation in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer. The Physiological and Operative Severity Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity

Background: The problem of directly comparing morbidity and mortality rates between institutions without some sort of adjustment for case mix is well documented. Scoring systems have been developed to allow comparisons to be made. The Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) is one such system. It was designed to predict operative mortality and morbidity in differing settings and to be independent of case mix. The present study examines the use of POSSUM in colorectal practice in Saudi Arabia. Methods: Patients referred to King Faisal Specialist Hospital between 1990 and 1998 for primary management of an histologically proven rectal cancer were identified. POSSUM mortality and morbidity scores and Portsmouth‐Physiological and Operative Severity Score (P‐POSSUM) mortality scores were calculated separately for each patient, and predicted rates were compared with observed rates in the patients studied. Results: There were 70 men (mean age: 55.6 years; range: 25?87) and 75 women (mean age: 52.8 years; range: 26?84). One hundred and six patients underwent ‘curative’ surgery. Abdominoperineal resection was the most frequently performed procedure. Major anastomotic leakage following anterior resection occurred in two of fifty patients. One patient developed a pulmonary embolism but no patient developed postoperative myocardial infarction. Two patients died. The median and mean physiological and operative severity scores were 13 (range: 12?37) and 17 (range: 8?37) and 14.68 and 18.36, respectively. The overall POSSUM‐predicted (using median scores) morbidity and mortality rates were 35.4% and 6.7%. The P‐POSSUM‐predicted (using mean scores) mortality rate was 3.5%. Observed morbidity and mortality rates were 54.5% and 1.4%. Conclusion: POSSUM failed to predict outcomes accurately in patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer in Saudi Arabia. P‐POSSUM also overpredicted mortality but to a lesser extent. Patient's ‘wellness’ and the previously identified inability of POSSUM to accurately predict death in low‐risk populations may explain these findings. Care must be exercised in using the POSSUM formulae for risk adjustment in different settings.     

Aggressive hepatic resection for patients with pyogenic liver abscess and APACHE II score > or =15

BACKGROUND: Most liver abscesses resolve after antimicrobial therapy or percutaneous tube drainage (PD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of hepatic resection (HR) for patients with pyogenic liver abscesses and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score > or =15. METHODS: We compared the clinical outcomes of 81 patients with APACHE II scores > or =15 undergoing PD and/or HR. RESULTS: The failure rate (3 of 65) and double-treatment rate (32 of 65) in the PD group were significantly higher than in the HR group (3 of 35 vs 0 of 35; P = .0002). The mortality rate in the PD group was significantly higher than the other 2 groups (14 of 46 vs 2 of 19 and 1 of 16; P = .038). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter and antibiotic use less in the HR group than in the PD group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive HR for patients with liver abscesses and APACHE II scores > or =15 produced better clinical outcomes.     

结直肠癌患者住院期间病死率新评分系统的建立和评价

目的建立预测术后病死率的改良P-POSSUM和改良Cr-POSSUM评分系统并与POSSUM比较，评价其对结直肠癌患者住院期间病死率的预测能力。方法调查北京大学第三医院1992-2005年间结直肠癌经手术切除的903例患者资料，按70：30把本组病例分成建立模型样本和预测模型样本，用Logistic回归分析建立改良P-POSSUM和改良Cr-POSSUM，用ROC曲线分析判断改良P-POSSUM和改良Cr-POSSUM评分的判别能力，用Hosmer-Lemeshow检验判断评分的拟合优度，用不同危险因素群的O：E值判断评分的预测能力。结果本组患者住院期间的病死率为1．0％（9／903）。POSSUM、P-POSSUM和Cr-POSSUM评分预测的病死率明显高于实际病死率，O：E值分别为0．18、0．35和0．20。改良P-POSSUM除在急诊手术和姑息手术中判别能力较差外，在其他手术中都具有较好的判别能力，在所有手术中预测的死亡率与实际死亡率接近（O：E值为0．91）；改良Cr-POSSUM除在姑息手术中有很好的判别能力外，在评价模型样本和急诊手术预测的死亡率高于实际死亡率，但仍在实际死亡率95％的可信区间内（0：E值为0．78）。两者的预测能力都好于POSSUM。结论POSSUM、P-POSSUM和Cr-POSSUM在中国结直肠癌手术中预测的病死率高于实际病死率。改良P-POSSUM和改良Cr-POSSUM可较准确地预测中国结直肠癌患者手术住院期间病死率。     

生理学和手术侵袭度评分在肺癌手术风险预测中的应用

目的探讨生理学和手术侵袭度评分(Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration ofMortality and Morbidity,POSSUM)预测肺癌患者术后并发症发生率和死亡率的应用价值,为临床治疗决策提供参考。方法回顾性分析2007年1月至2010年10月新疆医科大学第一附属医院住院期间接受肺癌手术治疗的179例原发性肺癌患者的临床资料,其中男124例,女55例;年龄(59.2±11.4)岁。术前应用POSSUM评分进行评分,将每位患者评分结果代入POSSUM评分的Copeland方程计算出预测的术后并发症发生率和死亡率。统计179例患者中术后实际并发症例数和死亡例数,将其分为无并发症组和有并发症组,比较两组POSSUM评分情况、并发症与死亡的实际值与预测值。对术后实际并发症和死亡发生的相关临床因素进行单因素分析。结果共有78例患者术后发生并发症,有并发症组生理学评分、手术侵袭度评分均明显高于无并发症组[生理学评分:(16.11±2.53)分vs.(14.88±1.86)分,P=0.000;手术侵袭度评分:(13.47±2.83)分vs.(12.88±2.57)分,P=0.000]。POSSUM评分预测术后并发症65例,实际并发症78例,差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.968,P=0.161)。POSSUM评分预测死亡12例,实际死亡3例,差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.636,P=0.018)。单因素分析结果显示年龄、血红蛋白量、术前肺功能、手术方式和手术时间均与术后并发症的发生相关;其中仅血红蛋白量与术后死亡的发生相关。结论 POSSUM评分能较好地预测肺癌患者术后并发症,但对术后死亡存在过度预测。5个临床观察的单因素具有较好的临床应用价值。