ICU患者压力性损伤预测风险列线图模型的建立

目的 分析ICU重症患者发生压力性损伤的危险因素,建立压力性损伤发生风险的列线图模型。方法 抽取2017年1—12月某三级甲等医院入住ICU且符合纳入标准的341例患者作为研究对象,依据患者住院期间压疮发生情况,采用自制调查表回顾性收集患者临床资料,运用Logistic回归分析压力性损伤的影响因素,建立预测压力性损伤发生的列线图模型,分别用H-L偏差度检验和ROC曲线评估预测模型的偏差度和区分度。结果 本次研究的压力性损伤发生率为16.4%。多因素 Logistic回归分析显示：脑卒中、糖尿病、乳酸、有创机械通气、性别为压力性损伤发生的危险因素（P<0.05）;血红蛋白及血清白蛋白为压力性损伤发生的保护性因素（P<0.05）。依此建立的列线图模型具有较好的准确度（H-L检验：χ²=4.561,P=0.683）和区分度（AUC=0.886,95%CI：0.749~0.970）。结论 本次研究整合了压力性损伤的7项影响因素,依此建立的列线图预测模型具有较好的预测价值,依据个体在列线图中各个危险因素的不同水平指导医护人员采取有针对性的预防策略,从而有效预防ICU患者压力性损伤的发生。     

预测重症急性胰腺炎预后模型的构建和验证

目的:通过列线图建立重症急性胰腺炎(Severe Acute Pancreatitis,SAP)患者生存结局的早期临床预测模型.方法:选择2015年1月至2019年12月福建省立医院及北京市朝阳医院收治的SAP患者为研究对象,运用Cox回归模型筛选影响预后的因素,根据危险因素的风险比构建列线图.评估预测模型的区分度和准...     

Braden量表与MEWS在重症监护室重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤中的预测价值分析

目的：探讨Braden量表与改良早期预警评分(MEWS)在重症监护室(ICU)重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤中的预测价值。方法：将2017年7月1日～2020年7月31日ICU住院接受治疗的105例重度创伤性损伤患者作为研究对象，调查患者一般资料、MEWS、Braden量表评分，并在量表最佳临界值下比较两种量表的灵敏度及特异度、阳性及阴性预测值，利用ROC曲线分析比较两种压力性损伤风险评估方式的预测价值。结果：MEWS预测压力性损伤AUC为0.724,当总分为13.2时，约登指数为0.569,预测值最大；Braden量表评分预测压力性损伤AUC为0.934,当总分为9.3时，约登指数为0.857,预测值最大。Braden量表灵敏度和特异性分别为97.25%、81.57%,高于MEWS评分灵敏度(92.63%)和特异性(65.32%)。结论：MEWS与Braden量表均能很好地预测ICU重度创伤损伤患者压力性损伤的发生风险，且Braden量表预测价值更高。     

老年失智症患者养老护理员照护性抑郁风险预测模型的构建

目的 探索照顾老年失智症患者的养老护理员发生照护性抑郁的危险因素,构建列线图模型,并加以验证。方法 2019年9—12月,通过便利抽样法选取辽宁省锦州市和沈阳市6家养老机构210例照顾失智症患者的养老护理员为研究对象,运用一般资料问卷、Zung's抑郁自评量表、照护负担量表、心理韧性量表以及领悟社会支持量表进行调查;通过单因素及多因素Logistic回归分析建立抑郁风险预测模型,并构建列线图;运用Bootstrap法验证模型效能。结果 照顾老年失智症患者的养老护理员照护性抑郁检出率为54.7%;二分类Logistic回归分析显示,照顾负担为发生照护性抑郁的独立危险因素（P<0.05）,健康自评状况、心理韧性、社会支持为照护性抑郁的保护性因素（P<0.05）;照护性抑郁列线图模型的校准度（H-L偏差度检验：χ²=4.709,P=0.788）和区分度（AUC=0.976,95%CI:0.959~0.993）良好。结论 照顾失智症患者的养老护理员照护性抑郁的检出率较高,并受健康状况、心理韧性、社会支持以及照顾负担的影响,构建的列线图模型对预测其发生具有一定的科学性和实用性。     

重症监护病房患者大便失禁相关性皮炎预测风险模型的建立和验证

目的分析重症监护室病房(intensive care unit,ICU)患者发生大便失禁相关性皮炎的危险因素,构建大便失禁相关性皮炎的列线图模型,并验证模型效果。方法采用回顾性分析法,收集2017年11月至2019年12月入住某三级甲等医院ICU的300例大便失禁患者资料,采用单因素和Logistic回归分析确定ICU患者大便失禁相关性皮炎的危险因素,据此构建列线图模型,通过受试者工作特征曲线(receiver operating characteristic curve,ROC曲线)和霍斯默(Hosmer-Lemeshow,H-L)拟合优度检验评价模型的区分度和校准度。并收集2020年1-5月入住该院ICU的60例大便失禁患者的资料,对模型进行外部验证。结果ICU患者大便失禁相关性皮炎独立危险因素包括大便次数、大便性状、体温和白蛋白,预测模型具有较好的区分度和校准度[ROC曲线下面积=0.828、95%置信区间(confidence interval,CI)0.782～0.875,H-L拟合优度检验χ~2=7.659、P=0.364]。模型外部验证敏感度为84.62%,特异度为79.41%。结论ICU患者大便失禁相关性皮炎,受大便次数、大便性状、体温和白蛋白等多因素影响,以此建立的预测模型可较好地预测ICU大便失禁患者失禁相关性皮炎发生的风险。     

急性冠脉综合征患者PCI术后新发抑郁风险列线图预测模型构建

目的建立预测急性冠脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入术后新发抑郁风险列线图模型,为临床早期识别和干预提供参考。方法便利选取2018年6月—2020年6月在本院心内科就诊的482例接受经皮冠状动脉介入术治疗的急性冠脉综合征患者为研究对象,采用自制一般情况调查表、D型性格问卷、抑郁自评量表对其进行一般情况调查和心理测评,采用Logistic回归分析确定新发抑郁的独立危险因素,同时建立新发抑郁风险列线图预测模型,并分别应用ROC曲线下面积(Area under ROC curve,AUC)、H-L偏差度检验和灵敏度、特异度、约登指数分别评估预测模型的区分度、偏差度和预测效能。结果本组482例急性冠脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入术后新发抑郁169例(35.1%);Logistic回归分析显示,年龄≥65岁、女性、独居、受教育程度低、美国心脏病协会心功能分级≥3级、D型人格为急性冠脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入术后新发抑郁的独立危险因素(P0.05);基于上述6种独立危险因素建立的新发抑郁列线图预测模型具有较好的区分度(AUC值,内部验证0.879,外部验证0.812)、准确度(H-L检验,内部验证χ~2=5.269,P=0.437,外部验证χ~2=5.724,P=0.405)和预测效能(约登指数0.759)。结论本研究所构建的列线图模型能够有效预测急性冠脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入术后新发抑郁风险,根据患者在列线图各危险因素的分布水平进行针对性预防干预,能够有效预防急性冠脉综合征患者术后抑郁的发生。     

严重创伤患者谵妄发生风险预测模型的构建

目的探讨严重创伤患者发生谵妄的危险因素,构建列线图模型,以预测谵妄的发生。方法应用损伤严重程度评分量表,选取某三级甲等医院ICU收治的严重创伤患者437例,将谵妄组(n=142)和非谵妄组(n=295)的各项指标进行对比,通过单因素分析和多因素Logistic回归分析探索谵妄发生的独立危险因素,建立风险预测模型并构建列线图,采用Bootstrapping法验证模型预测效果。结果多因素Logistic回归分析显示,损伤严重程度评分>21分(OR=39.718)、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分>13分(OR=20.921)、ICU入住时间>9 d (OR=4.331)、Richmond躁动-镇静评分(每增加1分)(OR=1.823)和未使用右美托咪啶(OR=0.367)是谵妄发生的独立危险因素。根据上述5项危险因素构建的严重创伤患者谵妄发生列线图模型一致性指数为0.936,灵敏度为88.73%,特异度为85.42%,约登指数为0.742;外部模型验证结果,一致性指数为0.917,灵敏度为100%,特异度为84.37%。结论本研究构建的列线图能有效预测严重创伤患者住院期间谵妄的...     

ICU患者头面部器械相关性压力性损伤风险预测模型的构建

目的 探讨ICU患者头面部器械相关性压力性损伤的危险因素,构建预测模型。方法 选取2021年6月-2022年2月收治的ICU患者210例,根据头面部是否发生器械相关性压力性损伤分为发生组(n=50)和未发生组(n=160)。使用二分类Logistic回归模型分析相关危险因素,构建预测模型并进行验证。结果 210例研究对象中有50例患者发生了器械相关性压力性损伤(23.8%)。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,水肿、俯卧位、急性生理慢性健康评分Ⅱ、血管活性药物使用时间是ICU患者头面部器械相关性压力性损伤的独立影响因素,基于上述影响因素构建预测头面部器械相关性压力性损伤风险的回归方程：Logit(P)=12.399+2.153×水肿+2.217×俯卧位+0.541×APACHEⅡ评分+0.342×血管活性药物使用时间。列线图模型AUC=0.945(95%CI:0.926～0.964),提示模型区分度较好;校正曲线显示模型校准度较好;Hosmer-Lemeshow检验(χ²=3.063,P=0.930)显示模型拟合度较好。结论 本研究构建的ICU患者头面部器械相关性...     

ICU老年髋关节置换术后病人压力性损伤风险预测模型的构建

目的:分析重症监护病房（ICU）老年髋关节置换术后病人发生压力性损伤的影响因素,构建风险预测模型。方法:选取2020年11月—2021年8月某三级甲等医院的248例ICU老年髋关节置换术后病人为研究对象,采用单因素分析和Logistic回归分析筛选ICU老年髋关节置换术后病人发生压力性损伤的影响因素,构建ICU老年髋关节置换术后病人压力性损伤风险预测模型,并对模型进行内部验证。结果:248例病人中有35例（14.1%）病人发生了压力性损伤,Logistic回归分析结果显示,年龄较大、体质指数<24 kg/m2或≥28 kg/m2、有糖尿病、美国麻醉医师协会分级≥Ⅲ级和手术时间≥3 h为压力性损伤发生的独立危险因素（P<0.05）;血清清蛋白≥35 g/L为压力性损伤发生的独立保护因素（P<0.05）。基于以上因素建立的列线图模型受试者工作特征曲线下面积为0.935,灵敏度为80.0%,特异度92.5%。H-L检验显示χ2=8.462,P=0.390。校准图显示模型预测的概率与实际观察形成的概率存在较好的一致性。结论:本研究构建的ICU老年髋关节置换术后病人压力性损伤风...     

Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表对重症颅脑损伤术后昏迷患者压力性损伤发生率的影响

目的探讨Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表对重症颅脑损伤术后昏迷患者压力性损伤发生率的影响。方法选择2019年5月至2020年10月于郑州大学附属郑州中心医院治疗的重症颅脑损伤术后昏迷患者150例, 按照随机数字表法分为对照组和研究组, 各75例。对照组采用常规护理, 研究组在对照组基础上采用Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表对患者进行评分, 根据评分情况针对性对患者实施护理, 护理前、后进行Braden评分, 护理后统计两组患者压力性损伤情况及住院时间, 采用格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分(GCS)对两组患者进行预后评价。结果护理后, 两组Braden评分较护理前升高, 研究组Braden评分高于对照组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);研究组压力性损伤发生率小于对照组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);护理后, 两组GCS评分均较护理前升高, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05), 研究组GCS评分高于对照组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);研究组住院时间短于对照组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表的运用可降低重症...     

Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting the risk of pressure injury in adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery

ObjectivesThis study aimed to develop a nomogram for predicting the risk of pressure injury (PI) in adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery and validate its effectiveness among these patients.MethodsThis study retrospectively included 11,247 adult patients, who underwent abdominal surgery and postoperative supervision in ICU, in a tertiary care hospital in western China between January 2017 and December 2020. All datasets were extracted from the patient’s medical records and randomly divided into the training cohort (8,997) and the validation cohort (2,250) by 8:2. The univariable logistic regression was used to select potentially relevant features. Then, multivariable logistic regression was also conducted and utilized to establish the nomogram. The nomogram was compared with the Braden scale for predicting PI in the validation cohort through the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test, and decision curve analysis (DCA).Results873 (7.8%) patients suffered PIs. Logistic regression analysis showed that time of operation, weight, type of operation, albumin, and Braden scale score were independent risk factors for PI. A nomogram integrating five selected characteristics was constructed. The AUC of the ROC curve for the nomogram was 0.831, with a specificity of 85.2% and sensitivity of 63.7%. The AUC of the ROC curve for the Braden scale was 0.567, with a specificity of only 33.0%. The P-values of the H-L test were 0.45 (nomogram) and 0.22 (Braden scale), both indicating good calibration. The DCA also displayed that the nomogram had better predictive validity.ConclusionCompared with the Braden scale, the nomogram showed a better predictive performance. This nomogram is informative and has the potential to better guide caregivers for risk stratification and prevention of PI, although it requires further validation.     

Braden量表诊断老年人压力性损伤的适用性和最佳界值的多中心研究

目的 探讨Braden量表诊断老年人压力性损伤的适用性和最佳界值,为临床正确使用Braden量表提供依据。方法 招募全国52所医疗机构,1 067名培训合格的护士每2～3人一组,采用目的 抽样法纳入60岁以上住院患者,检查其全身皮肤并收集相关资料,判断是否存在压力性损伤及其分期,同时采用Braden量表预测评分。使用统计软件分析老年人压力性损伤流行特征和Braden量表预测诊断压力性损伤受试者工作特征曲线下面积（area under the curve,AUC）、灵敏度、特异度和约登指数。结果 在33 769例有效资料中,压力性损伤总现患率为3.12%(1 054/33 769),其中医院获得性压力性损伤发生率为0.79%(267//33 769)。分层分析显示,Braden量表预测诊断不同年龄、性别、种族和不同医疗机构中老年患者压力性损伤的AUC为0.85～0.96,灵敏度和特异度分别为0.83～0.96和0.71～0.86。总分≤15、≤16、≤17、≤18、≤19、≤20分6个界值的AUC为0.67～0.82,灵敏度和特异度分别为0.67～0.84和0.54～0.68,约登指数为...     

Assessment of the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale for pressure injury in critically ill patients

IntroductionPressure injury is damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue that occurs in response to intense and/or prolonged skin pressure. The Braden scale is the most used in health services to assess pressure injury. However, this scale was not specifically developed for critically ill patients. The Critical Care Pressure Ulcer Assessment Tool Made Easy (CALCULATE) scale was developed for patients in intensive care units.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of the CALCULATE scale with that of Braden in predicting the risk of pressure injury in critically ill patients.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study, involving patients who did not have pressure injury on admission to the intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Data collection took place between January and July 2020 using the Braden and CALCULATE scales, in addition to clinical and sociodemographic variables. Patients were followed up until discharge from the intensive care unit or death.ResultsFifty-one patients were included in the study. Of these, 29 (56.9%) developed pressure injury. To predict pressure injury onset, the areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve of the Braden scale on the first day and the lowest score during the first 3 days were 0.71 (0.56–0.86) and 0.70 (0.53–0.87), respectively. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve of the CALCULATE scale on the first day and the highest score during the first 3 days were 0.91 (0.82–0.99) and 0.92 (0.85–1.00), respectively. In the logistic regression analysis, the CALCULATE scale on the first day remained an independent predictor of pressure injury onset after controlling for age and length of stay in the intensive care unit.ConclusionWe found that the CALCULATE scale may be more accurate than the Braden scale as a tool to assess the risk of developing pressure injury in critically ill patients.     

Incidence of pressure ulcers in a neurologic intensive care unit

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk factors for pressure ulceration in an intensive care setting, to evaluate the Braden scale as a predictor of pressure ulcer risk in critically ill patients, and to determine whether pressure ulcers are likely to occur early in the hospital stay. DESIGN: Cohort study of patients with no preexisting ulcers with a 3-month enrollment period. SETTING: The neurologic intensive care unit and the neurologic intermediate unit at a primary care/referral hospital with a level I trauma center. PATIENTS: A total of 186 patients entered the study. INTERVENTION: Within 12 hrs of admittance, initial assessment, photographs, and Braden score were completed. Patients were re-examined every 4 days or at discharge from the unit, whichever came first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Determining risk factors for pressure ulcers, performing detailed statistical analyses, and testing the usefulness of the Braden score as a predictor of pressure ulcer risk. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 186 patients developed at least one pressure ulcer (incidence = 12.4%) after an average stay of 6.4 days. The Braden scale, which measures six characteristics of skin condition and patient status, proved to be a primary predictor of ulcer development. No ulcers developed in the 69 patients whose Braden score was 16 or higher. The likelihood of developing a pressure sore was predicted mathematically from the Braden score. However, being underweight was a significant and distinct factor in pressure ulcer development. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure ulcers may develop within the first week of hospitalization in the intensive care unit. Patients at risk have Braden scores of < or = 16 and are more likely to be underweight. These results suggest that aggressive preventive care should be focused on those patients with Braden scores of < or = 13 and/or a low body mass index at admission.     

Assessing predictive validity of the modified Braden scale for prediction of pressure ulcer risk of orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting

Aims and objectives. To assess and compare the predictive validity of the modified Braden and Braden scales and to identify which of the modified Braden subscales are predictive in assessing pressure ulcer risk among orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Background. Although the Braden scale has better predictive validity, literature has suggested that it can be used in conjunction with other pressure ulcer risk calculators or that some other subscales be added. To increase the predictive power of the Braden scale, a modified Braden scale by adding body build for height and skin type and excluding nutrition was developed. Design. A prospective cohort study. Method. A total of 197 subjects in a 106‐bed orthopaedic department of an acute care hospital in Hong Kong were assessed for their risk for pressure ulcer development by the modified Braden and Braden scales. Subsequently, daily skin assessment was performed to detect pressure ulcers. Cases were closed when pressure ulcers were detected. Results. Out of 197 subjects, 18 patients (9·1%) developed pressure ulcers. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the modified Braden scale was 0·736 and for the Braden scale was 0·648. The modified Braden cut‐off score of 19 showed the best balance of sensitivity (89%) and specificity (62%). Sensory perception (Beta = ?1·544, OR=0·214, p = 0·016), body build for height (Beta = ?0·755, OR = 0·470, p = 0·030) and skin type (Beta = ?1·527, OR = 0·217, p = 0·002) were significantly predictive of pressure ulcer development. Conclusion. The modified Braden scale is more predictive of pressure ulcer development than the Braden scale. Relevance to clinical practice. The modified Braden scale can be adopted for predicting pressure ulcer development among orthopaedic patients in an acute care setting. Specific nursing interventions should be provided, with special attention paid to orthopaedic patients with impaired sensory perception, poor skin type and abnormal body build for height.     

手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表对手术患者压力性损伤预测效果的研究

目的 比较并评价手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Braden性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Munro围术期成人压力性损伤风险评估量表对外科择期手术患者手术获得性压力损伤的预测效果,为临床选择使用适宜量表提供依据。方法 选取2所三级甲等医院2019年12月—2020年6月外科择期手术患者237例,应用3种量表于术前、术中、术后对患者进行压力性损伤风险评估和皮肤检查。比较3种量表的预测效果和操作便利性。结果 手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表、Braden压力性损伤风险评估量表、Munro围术期成人压力性损伤风险评估量表,术前ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.695、0.619、0.684;术中ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.848、0.633、0.882;术后ROC曲线下面积AUC分别为0.861、0.757、0.870;3种量表的评估用时比较,手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表评估用时最短。结论 手术获得性压力性损伤风险评估量表对手术获得性压力性损伤患者预测能力较好,方便使用,值得临床推广应用。     

ICU压疮发病特征及氧合作用和血流灌注指标与压疮发生的相关性研究

【目的】分析 ICU压疮发病特征及氧合作用和血流灌注指标与压疮发生的相关性。【方法】113例ICU患者分为压疮组（26例）与非压疮组（87例）。比较两组患者入院时的一般情况、氧合作用与血流灌注指标,并对有意义的指标进行进一步的 Logistic回归分析。【结果】压疮的多发部位为骶尾部、臀部及肩胛部,大多数压疮患者的分期为Ⅰ期或Ⅱ期;压疮组平均年龄及入院诊断为呼吸系统疾病与外伤患者的比例明显高于非压疮组（P＜0．05）;压疮组与非压疮组动脉血酸碱度（pH）、动脉二氧化碳分压（PaCO2）、收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）、平均动脉压（MAP）及Braden评分比较有统计学意义（P ＜0．05）;多因素分析结果显示高龄（β＝1．637,OR＝5．140）、呼吸系统疾病（β＝1．592,OR＝4．914）、外伤（β＝1．748,OR＝5．743）是 ICU患者发生压疮的危险因素,而高 MAP（β＝-1．528,OR＝0．217）、高Braden评分（β＝-1．705,OR＝0．182）是保护因素。【结论】高龄、呼吸系统疾病、外伤是 ICU患者发生压疮的危险因素,而高 MAP、高 Braden评分是保护因素。     

两种压疮危险评估表预测效果的比较研究

[目的]测量并比较Waterlow压疮危险评估表和Braden修订版压疮危险评估表的预测效果。[方法]分别用两种评估表对332例病人进行评分,分析不同临界值时敏感性、特异性、阳性预测价值、阴性预测价值。[结果]Braden修订版压疮危险评估表以19分为临界值、Waterlow压疮危险评估表以15分为临界值时敏感性、特异性、阳性预测价值、阴性预测价值等指标间能达到较好的平衡,且Braden修订版压疮危险评估表各指标均大于Waterlow压疮危险评估表;Braden修订版压疮危险评估表的ROC曲线下面积略高于Waterlow压疮危险评估表。[结论]Braden修订版压疮危险评估表和Waterlow压疮危险评估表都有较好的预测效果,尤其以Braden修订版效果更优。