分析三种评分对急诊危急重症患者病情预后及评估的比较
|
摘要
目的分析三种评分对急诊危急重症患者病情预后及评估的价值。方法将412例急诊危重患者作为研究对象,所有患者采用MEWS、REMS和APACHEⅡ进行评估,对比三种评分对患者预后情况评估价值的差异。结果 412例急诊危重患者经28d治疗后83例病死,病死率为20.15%;随着MEWS、REMS、APACHEⅡ评分值升高,患者病死率呈逐渐上升趋势(P<0.05);存活组MEWS、REMS、APACHEⅡ评分均明显低于死亡组(P<0.05);APACHEⅡ评分对患者预后情况的预测准确性最高。结论 MEWS、REMS、APACHEⅡ评分均对急诊危急重症患者病情预后具有较好的预测价值,APACHEⅡ评分预测准确最高,而综合考虑成本效应,MEWS更加适合推广应用。
Objective To analyze the value of three scores in the prognosis and evaluation of critically ill patients in critically ill patients. Methods A total of 412 critically ill patients were enrolled in the study. All patients were evaluated with MEWS, REMS, and APACHE Ⅱ. The differences in the evaluation of the prognosis of the three scores were compared. Results Of the 412 critically ill patients, 83 died after 28 days of treatment, and the mortality rate was 20.15%.With the increase of MEWS, REMS and APACHE Ⅱ scores, the mortality rate of patients increased gradually(P<0.05). The scores of REMS and APACHE Ⅱ were significantly lower than those of the death group(P<0.05). The APACHE Ⅱ score had the highest accuracy in predicting the prognosis of patients. Conclusion MEWS, REMS and APACHE Ⅱ scores have good predictive value for the prognosis of patients with critically ill critically ill patients. APACHE Ⅱ score prediction is the most accurate, and considering the cost effect, MEWS is more suitable for popularization and application.
Objective To analyze the value of three scores in the prognosis and evaluation of critically ill patients in critically ill patients. Methods A total of 412 critically ill patients were enrolled in the study. All patients were evaluated with MEWS, REMS, and APACHE Ⅱ. The differences in the evaluation of the prognosis of the three scores were compared. Results Of the 412 critically ill patients, 83 died after 28 days of treatment, and the mortality rate was 20.15%.With the increase of MEWS, REMS and APACHE Ⅱ scores, the mortality rate of patients increased gradually(P<0.05). The scores of REMS and APACHE Ⅱ were significantly lower than those of the death group(P<0.05). The APACHE Ⅱ score had the highest accuracy in predicting the prognosis of patients. Conclusion MEWS, REMS and APACHE Ⅱ scores have good predictive value for the prognosis of patients with critically ill critically ill patients. APACHE Ⅱ score prediction is the most accurate, and considering the cost effect, MEWS is more suitable for popularization and application.
引文
[1]贾海娟.改良早期预警评分及危险病人评分对急诊科抢救室病人预后的评估价值[J].蚌埠医学院学报,2018,43(9):1156-1158.
[2]赵春虎.简单临床评分、MEWS评分和APACHEⅡ评分对老年急诊患者预后评估研究[J].河北医药,2017,39(2):224-226.
[3]刘铮,张海英.快速序贯器官功能评分与改良早期预警评分评估急诊危重症患者预后的对比研究[J].中国医师进修杂志,2017,40(12):1091-1095.
[4]王长远.NEWS评分MEWS评分和APACHEⅡ评分对急诊内科抢救室患者的评估价值[J].中国急救医学,2017,37(2):123-126.
[5]王春源.英国国家早期预警评分对急诊老年严重脓毒症及脓毒症休克患者预后的评估价值[J].实用临床医药杂志,2017,21(15):1-4.
[6]罗平平.3种不同评分在急诊危重患者预后评估中的对比研究[J].中华急诊医学杂志,2017,23(2):115-118.
[7]郭刚,吴先正,苏立杰.急诊BNP和乳酸检测对急性心肌梗死病人病情及预后评估的价值[J].中西医结合心脑血管病杂志,2017,15(1):76-79.
[8]郭星云,陈治国,石蕊,等.简化MEWS-4P评分和APACHEⅡ评分系统对EICU危重患者病情评估价值的比较[J].临床急诊杂志,2017,22(11):851-853.
[9]刘艳琰.APACHEⅡ评分对急诊内科危重患者的预后评估[J].实用临床医药杂志,2017,21(7):105-106.
[10]肖烽,张巍,吴颖,等.急诊危重病患者血脂水平与危重程度和预后相关性分析[J].检验医学与临床,2018,15(2):232-234.
[2]赵春虎.简单临床评分、MEWS评分和APACHEⅡ评分对老年急诊患者预后评估研究[J].河北医药,2017,39(2):224-226.
[3]刘铮,张海英.快速序贯器官功能评分与改良早期预警评分评估急诊危重症患者预后的对比研究[J].中国医师进修杂志,2017,40(12):1091-1095.
[4]王长远.NEWS评分MEWS评分和APACHEⅡ评分对急诊内科抢救室患者的评估价值[J].中国急救医学,2017,37(2):123-126.
[5]王春源.英国国家早期预警评分对急诊老年严重脓毒症及脓毒症休克患者预后的评估价值[J].实用临床医药杂志,2017,21(15):1-4.
[6]罗平平.3种不同评分在急诊危重患者预后评估中的对比研究[J].中华急诊医学杂志,2017,23(2):115-118.
[7]郭刚,吴先正,苏立杰.急诊BNP和乳酸检测对急性心肌梗死病人病情及预后评估的价值[J].中西医结合心脑血管病杂志,2017,15(1):76-79.
[8]郭星云,陈治国,石蕊,等.简化MEWS-4P评分和APACHEⅡ评分系统对EICU危重患者病情评估价值的比较[J].临床急诊杂志,2017,22(11):851-853.
[9]刘艳琰.APACHEⅡ评分对急诊内科危重患者的预后评估[J].实用临床医药杂志,2017,21(7):105-106.
[10]肖烽,张巍,吴颖,等.急诊危重病患者血脂水平与危重程度和预后相关性分析[J].检验医学与临床,2018,15(2):232-234.