美国国立卫生研究院脑出血卒中量表的验证

IF 2.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) Pub Date : 2023-06-09 eCollection Date: 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1161/SVIN.123.000834
Wendy Dusenbury, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Jason Chang, Nitin Goyal, Victoria Swatzell, Andrei V Alexandrov, Patrick Lyden, Anne W Alexandrov
{"title":"美国国立卫生研究院脑出血卒中量表的验证","authors":"Wendy Dusenbury, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Jason Chang, Nitin Goyal, Victoria Swatzell, Andrei V Alexandrov, Patrick Lyden, Anne W Alexandrov","doi":"10.1161/SVIN.123.000834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We sought to determine if the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) has a greater discriminative power than Glasgow coma scale (GCS) to identify patients at risk of poor early functional outcomes and large hematoma volumes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We prospectively collected clinical assessments, imaging, and outcome data in consecutive patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, and determined the ability of GCS and NIHSS to predict poor functional outcome (modified Rankin scale 3-6) and hematoma volume >30 cm<sup>3</sup> using receiver operating characteristics analysis, C-statistics, and the DeLong test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We studied 672 patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (mean age 62±14 years; 56% men; median intracerebral hemorrhage score=1, interquartile range (IQR) 0-2; median intracerebral hemorrhage volume 7 cm<sup>3</sup>, IQR 2-19) with median NIHSS of 8 (IQR 3-18) and GCS 15 (IQR 7-15). NIHSS correlated strongly to GCS (r=-0.773; <i>P</i><0.001). Admission NIHSS (C-statistic: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93) predicted better than GCS (0.78; 95% CI, 0.75-0.81) discharge poor functional outcome (DeLong test <i>P</i><0.001). NIHSS (0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86) also discriminated better than GCS (0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83) patients with large hematoma volume (DeLong test <i>P</i>=0.029).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The NIHSS has a greater discriminative power than GCS to identify patients at risk of poor early functional outcomes and large hematoma volumes.</p>","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":"e000834"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12778679/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale in Intracerebral Hemorrhage.\",\"authors\":\"Wendy Dusenbury, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Jason Chang, Nitin Goyal, Victoria Swatzell, Andrei V Alexandrov, Patrick Lyden, Anne W Alexandrov\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/SVIN.123.000834\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We sought to determine if the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) has a greater discriminative power than Glasgow coma scale (GCS) to identify patients at risk of poor early functional outcomes and large hematoma volumes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We prospectively collected clinical assessments, imaging, and outcome data in consecutive patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, and determined the ability of GCS and NIHSS to predict poor functional outcome (modified Rankin scale 3-6) and hematoma volume >30 cm<sup>3</sup> using receiver operating characteristics analysis, C-statistics, and the DeLong test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We studied 672 patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (mean age 62±14 years; 56% men; median intracerebral hemorrhage score=1, interquartile range (IQR) 0-2; median intracerebral hemorrhage volume 7 cm<sup>3</sup>, IQR 2-19) with median NIHSS of 8 (IQR 3-18) and GCS 15 (IQR 7-15). NIHSS correlated strongly to GCS (r=-0.773; <i>P</i><0.001). Admission NIHSS (C-statistic: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93) predicted better than GCS (0.78; 95% CI, 0.75-0.81) discharge poor functional outcome (DeLong test <i>P</i><0.001). NIHSS (0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86) also discriminated better than GCS (0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83) patients with large hematoma volume (DeLong test <i>P</i>=0.029).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The NIHSS has a greater discriminative power than GCS to identify patients at risk of poor early functional outcomes and large hematoma volumes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e000834\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12778679/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/SVIN.123.000834\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/SVIN.123.000834","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们试图确定美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)是否比格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)具有更大的判别力,以识别早期功能不良和血肿体积大的患者。我们前瞻性地收集了连续脑出血患者的临床评估、影像学和结果数据,并使用受试者操作特征分析、C‐统计量和DeLong检验确定了GCS和NIHSS预测不良功能结果(改良Rankin量表3-6)和血肿体积>30 cm 3的能力。我们研究了672名脑出血患者(平均年龄62±14岁;56%为男性;脑出血中位得分=1,四分位数间距(IQR)0-2;中位脑出血量7 cm 3,IQR 2–19),中位NIHSS为8(IQR 3–18),GCS为15(IQR 7–15)。NIHSS与GCS密切相关(r=−0.773;P<0.001)。入院NIHSS(C统计:0.91;95%CI,0.89–0.93)比GCS(0.78;95%CI,0.75–0.81)更好地预测出院不良功能结果(DeLong检验P<0.001在识别早期功能不良和血肿体积大的风险患者方面,GCS具有比GCS更大的辨别力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Validation of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale in Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background: We sought to determine if the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) has a greater discriminative power than Glasgow coma scale (GCS) to identify patients at risk of poor early functional outcomes and large hematoma volumes.

Methods: We prospectively collected clinical assessments, imaging, and outcome data in consecutive patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, and determined the ability of GCS and NIHSS to predict poor functional outcome (modified Rankin scale 3-6) and hematoma volume >30 cm3 using receiver operating characteristics analysis, C-statistics, and the DeLong test.

Results: We studied 672 patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (mean age 62±14 years; 56% men; median intracerebral hemorrhage score=1, interquartile range (IQR) 0-2; median intracerebral hemorrhage volume 7 cm3, IQR 2-19) with median NIHSS of 8 (IQR 3-18) and GCS 15 (IQR 7-15). NIHSS correlated strongly to GCS (r=-0.773; P<0.001). Admission NIHSS (C-statistic: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93) predicted better than GCS (0.78; 95% CI, 0.75-0.81) discharge poor functional outcome (DeLong test P<0.001). NIHSS (0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.86) also discriminated better than GCS (0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.83) patients with large hematoma volume (DeLong test P=0.029).

Conclusion: The NIHSS has a greater discriminative power than GCS to identify patients at risk of poor early functional outcomes and large hematoma volumes.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Jevons Paradox: Rise of the Machines May Create More Work for Physicians. Saved Flow. Recurrence of Angiographically Cured AVMs: Influence of Age, Angioarchitecture, and Hemorrhagic Presentation and Implications for Follow-Up. Endovascular Treatment in Subtypes of Posterior Large Vessel Occlusion: A Pooled Analysis From 2 Registries. Carotid Artery Stenting Outcomes in Comprehensive Stroke Hospitals (CASSH): A Prospective Multicenter Study.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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