严重颅脑损伤患者格拉斯哥昏迷量表-瞳孔外部验证。

Jesús Abelardo Barea-Mendoza, Juan Antonio Llompart-Pou, Jon Pérez-Bárcena, Manuel Quintana-Díaz, Lluís Serviá-Goixart, Francisco Guerrero-López, Javier González-Robledo, Ismael Molina-Díaz, Juncal Sánchez Arguiano, Mario Chico-Fernández
{"title":"严重颅脑损伤患者格拉斯哥昏迷量表-瞳孔外部验证。","authors":"Jesús Abelardo Barea-Mendoza, Juan Antonio Llompart-Pou, Jon Pérez-Bárcena, Manuel Quintana-Díaz, Lluís Serviá-Goixart, Francisco Guerrero-López, Javier González-Robledo, Ismael Molina-Díaz, Juncal Sánchez Arguiano, Mario Chico-Fernández","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the ability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, the GCS Pupils (GCS-P) score, and the Pupil Reactivity Score (PRS) to predict mortality in patients with severe head injury.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of all patients with severe head injury and initial GCS scores of 8 or lower on initial evaluation for whom records included pupil dilation information and clinical course after admission to intensive care units of participating hospitals. We assessed the ability of each of the 3 scores (GCS, GCS-P, and PRS) to predict mortality using discrimination analysis. Discrimination was estimated by calculating the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and 95% CIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1551 patients with severe head injury and pupil dilation records were studied. The mean age was 50 years, 1190 (76.7%) were males, and 592 (38.2%) died. No pupil dilation was observed in 905 patients (58.3%), 362 (23.3%) had unilateral mydriasis, and 284 (18.3%) had bilateral mydriasis. The GCS-P score was significantly better at predicting mortality, with an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79), versus 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67-0.72) for the GCS, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.77) for the PRS. As the GCS-P score decreased, mortality increased.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The GCS-P was more useful than the GCS for predicting death after severe head injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":11644,"journal":{"name":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","volume":"35 1","pages":"39-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External validation of the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils in patients with severe head injury.\",\"authors\":\"Jesús Abelardo Barea-Mendoza, Juan Antonio Llompart-Pou, Jon Pérez-Bárcena, Manuel Quintana-Díaz, Lluís Serviá-Goixart, Francisco Guerrero-López, Javier González-Robledo, Ismael Molina-Díaz, Juncal Sánchez Arguiano, Mario Chico-Fernández\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the ability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, the GCS Pupils (GCS-P) score, and the Pupil Reactivity Score (PRS) to predict mortality in patients with severe head injury.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Retrospective analysis of all patients with severe head injury and initial GCS scores of 8 or lower on initial evaluation for whom records included pupil dilation information and clinical course after admission to intensive care units of participating hospitals. We assessed the ability of each of the 3 scores (GCS, GCS-P, and PRS) to predict mortality using discrimination analysis. Discrimination was estimated by calculating the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and 95% CIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1551 patients with severe head injury and pupil dilation records were studied. The mean age was 50 years, 1190 (76.7%) were males, and 592 (38.2%) died. No pupil dilation was observed in 905 patients (58.3%), 362 (23.3%) had unilateral mydriasis, and 284 (18.3%) had bilateral mydriasis. The GCS-P score was significantly better at predicting mortality, with an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79), versus 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67-0.72) for the GCS, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.77) for the PRS. As the GCS-P score decreased, mortality increased.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The GCS-P was more useful than the GCS for predicting death after severe head injury.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"39-43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

目的比较格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)评分、GCS瞳孔评分(GCS-P)和瞳孔反应评分(PRS)预测重度颅脑损伤患者死亡率的能力:对所有严重颅脑损伤患者进行回顾性分析,这些患者在初次评估时的 GCS 评分为 8 分或更低,其记录包括瞳孔散大信息和入住参与医院重症监护室后的临床过程。我们使用辨别分析评估了 3 个评分(GCS、GCS-P 和 PRS)中每个评分预测死亡率的能力。通过计算接收者操作特征曲线下的面积(AUC)和 95% CIs 来估计判别能力:共研究了 1551 例有瞳孔散大记录的严重颅脑损伤患者。平均年龄为 50 岁,男性 1190 人(占 76.7%),死亡 592 人(占 38.2%)。905名患者(58.3%)未出现瞳孔散大,362名患者(23.3%)出现单侧瞳孔散大,284名患者(18.3%)出现双侧瞳孔散大。GCS-P 评分在预测死亡率方面有明显优势,其 AUC 为 0.77(95% CI,0.74-0.79),而 GCS 为 0.69(95% CI,0.67-0.72),PRS 为 0.75(95% CI,0.72-0.77)。随着 GCS-P 评分的降低,死亡率也随之升高:结论:在预测严重颅脑损伤后的死亡方面,GCS-P 比 GCS 更有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
External validation of the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils in patients with severe head injury.

Objectives: To compare the ability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, the GCS Pupils (GCS-P) score, and the Pupil Reactivity Score (PRS) to predict mortality in patients with severe head injury.

Material and methods: Retrospective analysis of all patients with severe head injury and initial GCS scores of 8 or lower on initial evaluation for whom records included pupil dilation information and clinical course after admission to intensive care units of participating hospitals. We assessed the ability of each of the 3 scores (GCS, GCS-P, and PRS) to predict mortality using discrimination analysis. Discrimination was estimated by calculating the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and 95% CIs.

Results: A total of 1551 patients with severe head injury and pupil dilation records were studied. The mean age was 50 years, 1190 (76.7%) were males, and 592 (38.2%) died. No pupil dilation was observed in 905 patients (58.3%), 362 (23.3%) had unilateral mydriasis, and 284 (18.3%) had bilateral mydriasis. The GCS-P score was significantly better at predicting mortality, with an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79), versus 0.69 (95% CI, 0.67-0.72) for the GCS, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.77) for the PRS. As the GCS-P score decreased, mortality increased.

Conclusion: The GCS-P was more useful than the GCS for predicting death after severe head injury.

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
A pioneering Spanish book on psychiatric emergencies from 1928, by César Juarros. Rapunzel syndrome in the emergency department. Complexity of care in the emergency department: Shall we treat the whole person to prevent revisits? Considerations regarding the use of the sex/gender variable in research: moving towards good practice. Progenders decalogue. We must be doing something right.
×
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