...
首页> 外文期刊>Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer >Is a specific oncological scoring system better at predicting the prognosis of cancer patients admitted for an acute medical complication in an intensive care unit than general gravity scores?
【24h】

Is a specific oncological scoring system better at predicting the prognosis of cancer patients admitted for an acute medical complication in an intensive care unit than general gravity scores?

机译:是否有一种特定的肿瘤评分系统比一般重力评分更好地预测在重症监护病房接受急性医疗并发症的癌症患者的预后?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a specific oncologic scoring system-the ICU Cancer Mortality model (ICM)-in predicting hospital mortality in comparison to two general severity scores-the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) and the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II). PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 247 patients admitted for a medical acute complication over an 18-month period in an oncological medical intensive care unit were prospectively registered. Their data, including type of complication, vital status at discharge and cancer characteristics as well as other variables necessary to calculate the three scoring systems were retrospectively assessed. RESULTS: Observed in-hospital mortality was 34%. The predicted in-hospital mortality rate for APACHE II was 32%; SAPS II, 24%; and ICM, 28%. The goodness of fit was inadequate except for the ICM score. Comparison of the area under the ROC curves revealed a better fit for ICM (area 0.79). The maximum correct classification rate was 72% for APACHE II, 74% for SAPS II and 77% for ICM. APACHE II and SAPS II were better at predicting outcome for survivors to hospital discharge, although ICM was better for non-survivors. Two variables were independently predicting the risk of death during hospitalisation: ICM (OR=2.31) and SAPS II (OR=1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Gravity scores were the single independent predictors for hospital mortality, and ICM was equivalent to APACHE II and SAPS II.
机译:目的:要评估特定的肿瘤评分系统(ICU癌症死亡率模型)在预测医院死亡率方面与两个总体严重程度评分(急性生理学和慢性健康评估(APACHE II)以及简化的急性生理学)相比的有效性得分(SAPS II)。患者和方法:前瞻性地登记了在肿瘤内科重症监护病房中接受治疗的18个月内发生医疗并发症的247例患者。回顾性评估了他们的数据,包括并发症的类型,出院时的生命状况和癌症特征以及计算这三个评分系统所需的其他变量。结果:观察到的住院死亡率为34%。 APACHE II的预计住院死亡率为32%; SAPS II,24%;和ICM,占28%。除了ICM分数外,拟合优度不足。 ROC曲线下面积的比较显示出更适合ICM(面积0.79)。 APACHE II,SAPS II和ICM的最大正确分类率分别为72%,74%和77%。尽管ICM对于非幸存者更好,但APACHE II和SAPS II在预测幸存者出院结局方面更好。有两个变量可以独立预测住院期间的死亡风险:ICM(OR = 2.31)和SAPS II(OR = 1.05)。结论重力评分是医院死亡率的唯一独立预测因子,ICM相当于APACHE II和SAPS II。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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