非靜脈曲張性上消化道出血預(yù)后的危險(xiǎn)因素及四種評(píng)分系統(tǒng)的應(yīng)用研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-13 21:19
【摘要】：背景:上消化道出血是臨床常見(jiàn)的消化科急重癥,雖然藥物治療的不斷進(jìn)步與內(nèi)鏡技術(shù)的不斷提高,其死亡率未見(jiàn)明顯下降。目前多種非靜脈曲張性上消化道出血(non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding,NVUGIB)評(píng)分系統(tǒng)先后報(bào)道,對(duì)于各評(píng)分系統(tǒng)的預(yù)測(cè)價(jià)值,不同研究差異較大,對(duì)于指南推薦應(yīng)用的Full Rockall Score(FRS)和Glasgow-Blatchford Score(GBS)評(píng)分系統(tǒng),以及近年新建立的AIMS65評(píng)分系統(tǒng)和Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva(PNED)評(píng)分系統(tǒng)的對(duì)比,國(guó)內(nèi)研究較少。這些評(píng)分系統(tǒng)在中國(guó)人群NVUGIB患者中的臨床預(yù)測(cè)能力與應(yīng)用價(jià)值,以及不良結(jié)局的危險(xiǎn)因素需要進(jìn)一步研究。目的:1、分析NVUGIB患者的臨床特征,利用GBS、AIMS65、FRS和PNED評(píng)分系統(tǒng)對(duì)NVUGIB患者進(jìn)行評(píng)估,研究不同評(píng)分系統(tǒng)對(duì)再出血、死亡和臨床干預(yù)的預(yù)測(cè)價(jià)值,尋找預(yù)測(cè)的最佳診斷界值;2、探討NVUGIB患者不同臨床結(jié)局下的危險(xiǎn)因素,為進(jìn)一步制定適用于我國(guó)NVUGIB患者的評(píng)分系統(tǒng)奠定基礎(chǔ)。方法:1、通過(guò)對(duì)天津醫(yī)科大學(xué)總醫(yī)院消化科2015年1月1日至2016年12月31日入院的394例非靜脈曲張性上消化道出血的患者進(jìn)行回顧性分析,收集每位患者住院期間資料,分析其一般臨床特征。分別按照GBS、AIMS65、FRS和PNED評(píng)分系統(tǒng)對(duì)每位患者進(jìn)行上消化道出血累計(jì)評(píng)分,繪制受試者工作特征曲線(receiver-operating characteristic curve,ROC曲線),計(jì)算ROC曲線下面積(the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve,AUROC),評(píng)價(jià)不同評(píng)分系統(tǒng)對(duì)再出血、死亡、臨床干預(yù)的預(yù)測(cè)價(jià)值,并尋找最佳的診斷界值。2、采用logistic單因素與多因素回歸分析,進(jìn)而探討與NVUGIB不同臨床結(jié)局相關(guān)的危險(xiǎn)因素。結(jié)果:1、消化性潰瘍、惡性腫瘤、糜爛性病變是NVUGIB的主要病因,分別占60.6%、13.7%、11.2%,男女比例為3.2:1。NVUGIB平均住院天數(shù)9.6±5.1天,住院再出血發(fā)生率9.1%,死亡患者占4.1%,需要進(jìn)行臨床干預(yù)治療的患者共189例,比例為48.0%,其中輸血41.3%,內(nèi)鏡下止血9.1%,外科治療6.6%,介入治療占3.3%。2、各評(píng)分系統(tǒng)死亡患者評(píng)分較存活患者高,再出血患者評(píng)分較非再出血患者評(píng)分高,臨床干預(yù)患者四種評(píng)分比非臨床干預(yù)者均高,差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。3.、PNED評(píng)分系統(tǒng)對(duì)死亡預(yù)測(cè)AUROC為0.933,高于GBS、AIMS65和FRS評(píng)分系統(tǒng)(p0.05),AUROC分別為0.809、0.813、0.809,后三者對(duì)死亡的預(yù)測(cè)能力相當(dāng)。GBS和FRS對(duì)再出血具有預(yù)測(cè)價(jià)值,其AUROC分別為0.715和0.702,預(yù)測(cè)能力相當(dāng),均高于AIMS65(AUROC 0.597),AIMS65預(yù)測(cè)再出血能力欠佳。預(yù)測(cè)臨床干預(yù)治療方面,GBS、AIMS65、FRS評(píng)分系統(tǒng)三者的曲線下面積分別為0.656(95%CI,0.607-0.703;p0.001),0.613(95%CI,0.563-0.662;p0.001),0.620(95%CI,0.570-0.668;p0.001),無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異。GBS對(duì)于再出血、死亡、臨床干預(yù)判斷的最佳界值7,9,7,PNED評(píng)分對(duì)死亡判斷的最佳界值為3,而AIMS65和FRS評(píng)分對(duì)再出血、死亡、臨床干預(yù)治療的最佳診斷界值為:AIMS65是1,0,0,FRS是4,5,3。4、血紅蛋白、白蛋白、PTINR、血尿素氮與再出血相關(guān),其獨(dú)立危險(xiǎn)因素為PTINR、血紅蛋白和白蛋白。上消化道再出血、輸血、年齡超過(guò)65歲、血紅蛋白、白蛋白、PTINR、血尿素氮與NVUGIB死亡相關(guān),而預(yù)測(cè)死亡的獨(dú)立危險(xiǎn)因素為PTINR和血尿素氮。年齡超過(guò)65歲、血紅蛋白、白蛋白、血尿素氮與臨床干預(yù)治療相關(guān),多因素回歸分析:血紅蛋白和白蛋白水平是NVUGIB臨床干預(yù)治療的獨(dú)立危險(xiǎn)因素。結(jié)論:1、消化性潰瘍、惡性腫瘤、黏膜糜爛性病變?nèi)允欠庆o脈曲張性上消化道出血的主要原因。2、PNED是對(duì)NVUGIB死亡預(yù)測(cè)的有效評(píng)分系統(tǒng),臨床預(yù)測(cè)價(jià)值高于GBS、AIMS65和FRS;GBS、FRS評(píng)分系統(tǒng)對(duì)于預(yù)測(cè)再出血具有較好的預(yù)測(cè)價(jià)值,優(yōu)于AIMS65評(píng)分;但對(duì)于臨床干預(yù),GBS、AIMS65和FRS三種評(píng)分系統(tǒng)雖然具有一定的預(yù)測(cè)價(jià)值,但評(píng)分結(jié)果不佳,并非理想預(yù)測(cè)工具。3、PTINR、血紅蛋白和白蛋白是預(yù)測(cè)再出血的獨(dú)立危險(xiǎn)因素。PTINR和血尿素氮是預(yù)測(cè)NVUGIB死亡的獨(dú)立危險(xiǎn)因素。血紅蛋白和白蛋白是預(yù)測(cè)臨床干預(yù)治療的獨(dú)立危險(xiǎn)因素。
[Abstract]:Background: hemorrhage in the upper digestive tract is a common severe acute severe disease in the Department of digestive department. Although the continuous improvement of drug treatment and the continuous improvement of endoscopy, the mortality rate has not decreased significantly. At present, various non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, NVUGIB) scoring system has been reported for each score. The value of the system is very different from the different research. For the recommended application of the Full Rockall Score (FRS) and Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) scoring system, as well as the newly established AIMS65 scoring system and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva score system in recent years, the domestic research is less. These scoring systems are in China. The clinical predictive and applied value of NVUGIB patients and the risk factors for adverse outcomes need further study. Objective: 1. Analyze the clinical features of NVUGIB patients and evaluate the NVUGIB patients by using GBS, AIMS65, FRS and PNED scoring systems to study the predictive value of different scoring systems for rebleeding, death and clinical intervention. To find the best diagnostic value of prediction; 2, to explore the risk factors of NVUGIB patients with different clinical outcomes, and to lay the foundation for further formulating the scoring system for NVUGIB patients in China. Methods: 1, 394 cases of non variceal upper gastrointestinal tract were admitted to the Department of digestive department of General Hospital Affiliated to Tianjin Medical University from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. The patients with bleeding were analyzed retrospectively, collected the data of each patient and analyzed their general clinical features. The cumulative score of upper gastrointestinal bleeding was performed on each patient according to the GBS, AIMS65, FRS and PNED scoring system respectively, and the subjects' work characteristic curve (receiver-operating characteristic curve, ROC curve) was drawn and the ROC curve was calculated. The lower area (the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, AUROC) was used to evaluate the predictive value of different scoring systems for rebleeding, death, and clinical intervention, and to find the best diagnostic value.2, using logistic single factor and multivariate regression analysis to explore the risk factors associated with NVUGIB clinical outcomes. Results: 1, Peptic ulcer, malignant tumor and erosive disease were the main causes of NVUGIB, which accounted for 60.6%, 13.7%, 11.2% respectively. The ratio of male and female to 3.2:1.NVUGIB was 9.6 + 5.1 days, the incidence of rebleeding in hospital was 9.1%, and the mortality was 4.1%. There were 189 patients needing clinical intervention, with the proportion of 48%, 41.3% of blood transfusions and endoscopy hemostasis. 9.1%, surgical treatment 6.6%, intervention therapy accounted for 3.3%.2, the score system death patients score higher than the survival patients, rebleeding score higher than non rebleeding score, four types of clinical intervention patients were higher than non clinical intervention, the difference was statistically significant.3., the PNED score system to death prediction AUROC was 0.933, higher than GBS, AIMS65 And the FRS scoring system (P0.05), AUROC was 0.809,0.813,0.809, and the latter three had a predictive value for death by.GBS and FRS. The AUROC was 0.715 and 0.702, respectively. The predictive ability was equal to AIMS65 (AUROC 0.597), and AIMS65 predicted a poor rebleeding ability. The area under the curve of the three sub system were 0.656 (95%CI, 0.607-0.703; p0.001), 0.613 (95%CI, 0.563-0.662; p0.001), 0.620 (95%CI, 0.570-0.668; p0.001), and there was no statistical difference in.GBS for rebleeding, death, and clinical intervention, the best boundary value was 3. The best diagnostic value of blood, death, and clinical intervention is that AIMS65 is 1,0,0, FRS is 4,5,3.4, hemoglobin, albumin, PTINR, blood urea nitrogen is associated with rebleeding, and its independent risk factors are PTINR, hemoglobin and albumin. The upper digestive tract rebleeding, blood transfusion, more than 65 years old, hemoglobin, albumin, PTINR, blood urea nitrogen and NVUGIB death The independent risk factors for predicting death are PTINR and blood urea nitrogen. Age over 65 years old. Hemoglobin, albumin, blood urea nitrogen are associated with clinical intervention. Multivariate regression analysis: hemoglobin and albumin levels are independent risk factors for NVUGIB clinical intervention. Conclusion: 1, peptic ulcer, malignant tumor, mucous chyle. Rotten disease is still the main cause of non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.2, PNED is an effective scoring system for predicting NVUGIB death, and the clinical predictive value is higher than GBS, AIMS65 and FRS; GBS, FRS scoring system has better predictive value for predicting rebleeding than AIMS65 score, but three comments on clinical intervention, GBS, AIMS65, and FRS. Although the sub-system has a certain predictive value, the score is not good, it is not an ideal predictor.3, PTINR, hemoglobin and albumin are independent risk factors for predicting rebleeding,.PTINR and blood urea nitrogen are independent risk factors for predicting NVUGIB death. Hemoglobin and white egg white are independent risk factors for predicting clinical intervention.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R573.2
本文編號(hào)：2120775
[Abstract]:Background: hemorrhage in the upper digestive tract is a common severe acute severe disease in the Department of digestive department. Although the continuous improvement of drug treatment and the continuous improvement of endoscopy, the mortality rate has not decreased significantly. At present, various non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, NVUGIB) scoring system has been reported for each score. The value of the system is very different from the different research. For the recommended application of the Full Rockall Score (FRS) and Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) scoring system, as well as the newly established AIMS65 scoring system and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva score system in recent years, the domestic research is less. These scoring systems are in China. The clinical predictive and applied value of NVUGIB patients and the risk factors for adverse outcomes need further study. Objective: 1. Analyze the clinical features of NVUGIB patients and evaluate the NVUGIB patients by using GBS, AIMS65, FRS and PNED scoring systems to study the predictive value of different scoring systems for rebleeding, death and clinical intervention. To find the best diagnostic value of prediction; 2, to explore the risk factors of NVUGIB patients with different clinical outcomes, and to lay the foundation for further formulating the scoring system for NVUGIB patients in China. Methods: 1, 394 cases of non variceal upper gastrointestinal tract were admitted to the Department of digestive department of General Hospital Affiliated to Tianjin Medical University from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016. The patients with bleeding were analyzed retrospectively, collected the data of each patient and analyzed their general clinical features. The cumulative score of upper gastrointestinal bleeding was performed on each patient according to the GBS, AIMS65, FRS and PNED scoring system respectively, and the subjects' work characteristic curve (receiver-operating characteristic curve, ROC curve) was drawn and the ROC curve was calculated. The lower area (the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, AUROC) was used to evaluate the predictive value of different scoring systems for rebleeding, death, and clinical intervention, and to find the best diagnostic value.2, using logistic single factor and multivariate regression analysis to explore the risk factors associated with NVUGIB clinical outcomes. Results: 1, Peptic ulcer, malignant tumor and erosive disease were the main causes of NVUGIB, which accounted for 60.6%, 13.7%, 11.2% respectively. The ratio of male and female to 3.2:1.NVUGIB was 9.6 + 5.1 days, the incidence of rebleeding in hospital was 9.1%, and the mortality was 4.1%. There were 189 patients needing clinical intervention, with the proportion of 48%, 41.3% of blood transfusions and endoscopy hemostasis. 9.1%, surgical treatment 6.6%, intervention therapy accounted for 3.3%.2, the score system death patients score higher than the survival patients, rebleeding score higher than non rebleeding score, four types of clinical intervention patients were higher than non clinical intervention, the difference was statistically significant.3., the PNED score system to death prediction AUROC was 0.933, higher than GBS, AIMS65 And the FRS scoring system (P0.05), AUROC was 0.809,0.813,0.809, and the latter three had a predictive value for death by.GBS and FRS. The AUROC was 0.715 and 0.702, respectively. The predictive ability was equal to AIMS65 (AUROC 0.597), and AIMS65 predicted a poor rebleeding ability. The area under the curve of the three sub system were 0.656 (95%CI, 0.607-0.703; p0.001), 0.613 (95%CI, 0.563-0.662; p0.001), 0.620 (95%CI, 0.570-0.668; p0.001), and there was no statistical difference in.GBS for rebleeding, death, and clinical intervention, the best boundary value was 3. The best diagnostic value of blood, death, and clinical intervention is that AIMS65 is 1,0,0, FRS is 4,5,3.4, hemoglobin, albumin, PTINR, blood urea nitrogen is associated with rebleeding, and its independent risk factors are PTINR, hemoglobin and albumin. The upper digestive tract rebleeding, blood transfusion, more than 65 years old, hemoglobin, albumin, PTINR, blood urea nitrogen and NVUGIB death The independent risk factors for predicting death are PTINR and blood urea nitrogen. Age over 65 years old. Hemoglobin, albumin, blood urea nitrogen are associated with clinical intervention. Multivariate regression analysis: hemoglobin and albumin levels are independent risk factors for NVUGIB clinical intervention. Conclusion: 1, peptic ulcer, malignant tumor, mucous chyle. Rotten disease is still the main cause of non variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.2, PNED is an effective scoring system for predicting NVUGIB death, and the clinical predictive value is higher than GBS, AIMS65 and FRS; GBS, FRS scoring system has better predictive value for predicting rebleeding than AIMS65 score, but three comments on clinical intervention, GBS, AIMS65, and FRS. Although the sub-system has a certain predictive value, the score is not good, it is not an ideal predictor.3, PTINR, hemoglobin and albumin are independent risk factors for predicting rebleeding,.PTINR and blood urea nitrogen are independent risk factors for predicting NVUGIB death. Hemoglobin and white egg white are independent risk factors for predicting clinical intervention.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R573.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條
1 Erwin Biecker;;Diagnosis and therapy of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding[J];World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics;2015年04期
2 Sung Hoon Jung;Jung Hwan Oh;Hye Yeon Lee;Joon Won Jeong;Se Eun Go;Chan Ran You;Eun Jung Jeon;Sang Wook Choi;;Is the AIM65 score useful in predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding?[J];World Journal of Gastroenterology;2014年07期
3 王海燕;頓曉熠;柏愚;李兆申;;中國(guó)上消化道出血的臨床流行病學(xué)分析[J];中華消化內(nèi)鏡雜志;2013年02期
4 Leonardo Tammaro;Maria Carla Di Paolo;Angelo Zullo;Cesare Hassan;Sergio Morini;SebastianoCaliendo;Lorella Pallotta;;Endoscopic findings in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding clinically classified into three risk groups prior to endoscopy[J];World Journal of Gastroenterology;2008年32期
，本文編號(hào)：2120775
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/yixuelunwen/xiaohjib/2120775.html
最近更新
教材專(zhuān)著
