首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Computed Tomography Severity Index vs. Other Indices in the Prediction of Severity and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis: A Predictive Accuracy Meta-analysis
【2h】

Computed Tomography Severity Index vs. Other Indices in the Prediction of Severity and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis: A Predictive Accuracy Meta-analysis

机译:计算机断层扫描严重度指数与其他指标对急性胰腺炎严重程度和死亡率的预测:预测准确性的荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Background: The management of the moderate and severe forms of acute pancreatitis (AP) with necrosis and multiorgan failure remains a challenge. To predict the severity and mortality of AP multiple clinical, laboratory-, and imaging-based scoring systems are available.>Aim: To investigate, if the computed tomography severity index (CTSI) can predict the outcomes of AP better than other scoring systems.>Methods: A systematic search was performed in three databases: Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible records provided data from consecutive AP cases and used CTSI or modified CTSI (mCTSI) alone or in combination with other prognostic scores [Ranson, bedside index of severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP), Acute Physiology, and Chronic Health Examination II (APACHE II), C-reactive protein (CRP)] for the evaluation of severity or mortality of AP. Area under the curves (AUCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and aggregated with STATA 14 software using the metandi module.>Results: Altogether, 30 studies were included in our meta-analysis, which contained the data of 5,988 AP cases. The pooled AUC for the prediction of mortality was 0.79 (CI 0.73–0.86) for CTSI; 0.87 (CI 0.83–0.90) for BISAP; 0.80 (CI 0.72–0.89) for mCTSI; 0.73 (CI 0.66–0.81) for CRP level; 0.87 (CI 0.81–0.92) for the Ranson score; and 0.91 (CI 0.88–0.93) for the APACHE II score. The APACHE II scoring system had significantly higher predictive value for mortality than CTSI and CRP (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), while the predictive value of CTSI was not statistically different from that of BISAP, mCTSI, CRP, or Ranson criteria. The AUC for the prediction of severity of AP were 0.80 (CI 0.76–0.85) for CTSI; 0.79, (CI 0.72–0.86) for BISAP; 0.83 (CI 0.75–0.91) for mCTSI; 0.73 (CI 0.64–0.83) for CRP level; 0.81 (CI 0.75–0.87) for Ranson score and 0.80 (CI 0.77–0.83) for APACHE II score. Regarding severity, all tools performed equally.>Conclusion: Though APACHE II is the most accurate predictor of mortality, CTSI is a good predictor of both mortality and AP severity. When the CT scan has been performed, CTSI is an easily calculable and informative tool, which should be used more often in routine clinical practice.
机译:>背景:管理中度和重度急性坏死性胰腺炎(AP)并伴有坏死和多器官功能衰竭仍然是一个挑战。要预测AP的严重程度和死亡率,可以使用多种基于临床,实验室和影像学的评分系统。>目的:调查计算机断层扫描严重性指数(CTSI)是否可以预测AP的结果>方法:在三个数据库中进行了系统搜索:Pubmed,Embase和Cochrane库。符合条件的记录提供了来自连续AP病例的数据,并单独使用了CTSI或改良的CTSI(mCTSI)或与其他预后评分结合使用[兰森,急性胰腺炎的严重程度床旁指数(BISAP),急性生理学和慢性健康检查II(APACHE II) ),C反应蛋白(CRP)]用于评估AP的严重程度或死亡率。使用metandi模块,使用STATA 14软件计算了具有95%置信区间(CI)的曲线下面积(AUC),并进行了汇总。>结果:我们的荟萃分析总共包括30项研究,这些研究包含5988例AP病例的数据。对于CTSI,用于预测死亡率的合并AUC为0.79(CI 0.73-0.86)。 BISAP为0.87(CI 0.83-0.90); mCTSI为0.80(CI 0.72-0.89); CRP水平为0.73(CI 0.66-0.81); Ranson分数为0.87(CI 0.81-0.92); APACHE II得分为0.91(CI 0.88-0.93)。 APACHE II评分系统的死亡率预测值显着高于CTSI和CRP(分别为p = 0.001和p <0.001),而CTSI的预测值与BISAP,mCTSI,CRP或Ranson标准没有统计学差异。 。 CTSI对AP严重程度的预测的AUC为0.80(CI 0.76-0.85)。 BISAP为0.79,(CI为0.72-0.86); mCTSI为0.83(CI 0.75-0.91); CRP水平为0.73(CI 0.64-0.83); Ranson得分为0.81(CI 0.75-0.87),APACHE II得分为0.80(CI 0.77-0.83)。关于严重性,所有工具的性能均相同。>结论:尽管APACHE II是最准确的死亡率预测指标,但CTSI可以很好地预测死亡率和AP严重程度。执行完CT扫描后,CTSI是一种易于计算和提供信息的工具,应在常规临床实践中更频繁地使用它。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号