POBS-CARD:心脏手术后严重出血的新评分标准:构建与外部验证

Emmanuel Besnier MD, PhD , Pierre Schmidely MD , Guillaume Dubois MD , Prisca Lemonne MD , Lucie Todesco MD , Chadi Aludaat MD , Thierry Caus MD, PHD , Jean Selim MD, PhD , Emmanuel Lorne MD, PhD , Osama Abou-Arab MD, PhD
{"title":"POBS-CARD:心脏手术后严重出血的新评分标准:构建与外部验证","authors":"Emmanuel Besnier MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Pierre Schmidely MD ,&nbsp;Guillaume Dubois MD ,&nbsp;Prisca Lemonne MD ,&nbsp;Lucie Todesco MD ,&nbsp;Chadi Aludaat MD ,&nbsp;Thierry Caus MD, PHD ,&nbsp;Jean Selim MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Emmanuel Lorne MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Osama Abou-Arab MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.04.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Bleeding after cardiac surgery leads to poor outcomes. The objective of the study was to build the PeriOperative Bleeding Score in Cardiac surgery (POBS-Card) to predict bleeding after cardiac surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 2 academic hospitals (2016-2019). Inclusion criteria were adult patients after cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. Exclusion criteria were heart transplantation, assistance, aortic dissection, and preoperative hemostasis diseases. Bleeding was defined by the universal definition for perioperative bleeding score ≥2. POBS-Card score was built using multivariate regression (derivation cohort, one center). The performance diagnosis was assessed using the area under the curve in a validation cohort (2 centers) and compared with other scores.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 1704 patients were included in the derivation cohort, 344 (20%) with bleeding. Preoperative factors were body mass index &lt;25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [1.14-1.93]), type of surgery (redo: OR, 1.76 [1.07-2.82]; combined: OR, 1.81 [1.19-2.74]; ascendant aorta: OR, 1.56 [1.02-2.38]), ongoing antiplatelet therapy (single: OR, 1.50 [1.09-2.05]; double: OR, 2.00 [1.15-3.37]), activated thromboplastin time ratio &gt;1.2 (OR, 1.44 [1.03-1.99]), prothrombin ratio &lt;60% (OR, 1.91 [1.21-2.97]), platelet count &lt;150 g/L (OR, 1.74 [1.17-2.57]), and fibrinogen &lt;3 g/L (OR, 1.33 [1.02-1.73]). In the validation cohort of 597 patients, the area under the curve was 0.645 [0.605-0.683] and was superior to other scores (WILL-BLEED, Papworth, TRUST, TRACK). A threshold &gt;14 predicted bleeding with a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 73%.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>POBS-Card score was superior to other scores in predicting severe bleeding after cardiac surgery. Performances remained modest, questioning the place of these scores in the perioperative strategy of bleeding-sparing.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":"19 ","pages":"Pages 183-199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001104/pdfft?md5=4b42f2c29a6781090215a943bfd8bbb0&pid=1-s2.0-S2666273624001104-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"POBS-Card, a new score of severe bleeding after cardiac surgery: Construction and external validation\",\"authors\":\"Emmanuel Besnier MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Pierre Schmidely MD ,&nbsp;Guillaume Dubois MD ,&nbsp;Prisca Lemonne MD ,&nbsp;Lucie Todesco MD ,&nbsp;Chadi Aludaat MD ,&nbsp;Thierry Caus MD, PHD ,&nbsp;Jean Selim MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Emmanuel Lorne MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Osama Abou-Arab MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.04.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Bleeding after cardiac surgery leads to poor outcomes. The objective of the study was to build the PeriOperative Bleeding Score in Cardiac surgery (POBS-Card) to predict bleeding after cardiac surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 2 academic hospitals (2016-2019). Inclusion criteria were adult patients after cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. Exclusion criteria were heart transplantation, assistance, aortic dissection, and preoperative hemostasis diseases. Bleeding was defined by the universal definition for perioperative bleeding score ≥2. POBS-Card score was built using multivariate regression (derivation cohort, one center). The performance diagnosis was assessed using the area under the curve in a validation cohort (2 centers) and compared with other scores.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 1704 patients were included in the derivation cohort, 344 (20%) with bleeding. Preoperative factors were body mass index &lt;25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [1.14-1.93]), type of surgery (redo: OR, 1.76 [1.07-2.82]; combined: OR, 1.81 [1.19-2.74]; ascendant aorta: OR, 1.56 [1.02-2.38]), ongoing antiplatelet therapy (single: OR, 1.50 [1.09-2.05]; double: OR, 2.00 [1.15-3.37]), activated thromboplastin time ratio &gt;1.2 (OR, 1.44 [1.03-1.99]), prothrombin ratio &lt;60% (OR, 1.91 [1.21-2.97]), platelet count &lt;150 g/L (OR, 1.74 [1.17-2.57]), and fibrinogen &lt;3 g/L (OR, 1.33 [1.02-1.73]). In the validation cohort of 597 patients, the area under the curve was 0.645 [0.605-0.683] and was superior to other scores (WILL-BLEED, Papworth, TRUST, TRACK). A threshold &gt;14 predicted bleeding with a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 73%.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>POBS-Card score was superior to other scores in predicting severe bleeding after cardiac surgery. Performances remained modest, questioning the place of these scores in the perioperative strategy of bleeding-sparing.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JTCVS open\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 183-199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001104/pdfft?md5=4b42f2c29a6781090215a943bfd8bbb0&pid=1-s2.0-S2666273624001104-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JTCVS open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的心脏手术后出血会导致不良预后。该研究旨在建立心脏手术术前出血评分(POBS-Card),以预测心脏手术后的出血情况。方法我们在两家学术医院开展了一项回顾性队列研究(2016-2019 年)。纳入标准为在心肺旁路下进行心脏手术的成年患者。排除标准为心脏移植、辅助、主动脉夹层和术前止血疾病。出血按围手术期出血评分≥2的通用定义定义。POBS-Card 评分通过多元回归法得出(衍生队列,一个中心)。在验证队列(2 个中心)中使用曲线下面积评估了性能诊断,并与其他评分进行了比较。术前因素包括体重指数<25 kg/m2(几率比[OR],1.48 [1.14-1.93])、手术类型(重做:OR,1.76 [1.07-2.82];合并手术:OR,1.81 [1.19-2.74];升主动脉:OR,1.56 [1.02-2.38])、正在进行的抗血小板治疗(单次:OR,1.50 [1.09-2.05];双次:OR,2.00 [1.15-3.37])、活化凝血活酶时间比值>1.2(OR,1.44 [1.03-1.99])、凝血酶原比率<60%(OR,1.91 [1.21-2.97])、血小板计数<150 g/L(OR,1.74 [1.17-2.57])和纤维蛋白原<3 g/L(OR,1.33 [1.02-1.73])。在由 597 名患者组成的验证队列中,曲线下面积为 0.645 [0.605-0.683],优于其他评分(WILL-BLEED、Papworth、TRUST、TRACK)。结论POBS-Card 评分在预测心脏手术后严重出血方面优于其他评分。结论POBS-Card评分在预测心脏手术后严重出血方面优于其他评分,但其表现仍然一般,这对这些评分在围手术期预防出血策略中的地位提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
POBS-Card, a new score of severe bleeding after cardiac surgery: Construction and external validation

Objective

Bleeding after cardiac surgery leads to poor outcomes. The objective of the study was to build the PeriOperative Bleeding Score in Cardiac surgery (POBS-Card) to predict bleeding after cardiac surgery.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 2 academic hospitals (2016-2019). Inclusion criteria were adult patients after cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass. Exclusion criteria were heart transplantation, assistance, aortic dissection, and preoperative hemostasis diseases. Bleeding was defined by the universal definition for perioperative bleeding score ≥2. POBS-Card score was built using multivariate regression (derivation cohort, one center). The performance diagnosis was assessed using the area under the curve in a validation cohort (2 centers) and compared with other scores.

Results

In total, 1704 patients were included in the derivation cohort, 344 (20%) with bleeding. Preoperative factors were body mass index <25 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR], 1.48 [1.14-1.93]), type of surgery (redo: OR, 1.76 [1.07-2.82]; combined: OR, 1.81 [1.19-2.74]; ascendant aorta: OR, 1.56 [1.02-2.38]), ongoing antiplatelet therapy (single: OR, 1.50 [1.09-2.05]; double: OR, 2.00 [1.15-3.37]), activated thromboplastin time ratio >1.2 (OR, 1.44 [1.03-1.99]), prothrombin ratio <60% (OR, 1.91 [1.21-2.97]), platelet count <150 g/L (OR, 1.74 [1.17-2.57]), and fibrinogen <3 g/L (OR, 1.33 [1.02-1.73]). In the validation cohort of 597 patients, the area under the curve was 0.645 [0.605-0.683] and was superior to other scores (WILL-BLEED, Papworth, TRUST, TRACK). A threshold >14 predicted bleeding with a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 73%.

Conclusions

POBS-Card score was superior to other scores in predicting severe bleeding after cardiac surgery. Performances remained modest, questioning the place of these scores in the perioperative strategy of bleeding-sparing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Repair of acute type A aortic dissection: The simplest solution is not always the best Are there etiology-specific risk factors for adverse outcomes in patients on Impella 5.5 support? Type B aortic dissection in Marfan patients after the David procedure: Insights from patient-specific simulation Reoperation after aortic root replacement and its impact on long-term survival Should we wait until the morning?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1