目的 对比理解急诊晕厥患者的危险分层评估方法。方法 应用英国ROSE规则、美国SFSR规则分别对2016-06至2018-11在北京天坛医院就诊的108例晕厥患者快速评估,对所有患者随访1个月,统计分析其灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、阳性似然比、阴性似然比,并对比分析两种危险分层的规则。结果 108例在1个月内有43例发生不良事件,ROSE规则评判的特异度86.2%,阴性预测值90.3%,阴性似然比0.16;而SFSR规则评判的特异度84.6%,阴性预测值85.9%,阴性似然比0.25。二种规则一致性分析的Kappa值是0.732。结论 两种危险分层规则对筛查判定非高危患者均具有重要的临床意义,可以结合患者临床实际灵活运用。
Abstract
Objective To compare and analyze risk stratification methods for syncope patients in an emergency department.Methods One hundred and eight patients with syncope admitted to Beijing Tiantan Hospital between June 2016 and November 2018 were assessed by ROSE rule and SFSR rule respectively. All patients were followed up for one month. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were analyzed and compared between the two rules.Results In this study, forty-three patients had short-term serious outcomes in one month. For ROSE rule analysis, the specificity was 86.2%, the negative predictive value was 90.3%, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.16, compared with 84.6%, 85.9% and 0.25 respectively with SFSR rule. The value of concordance between the two rules was 0.732.Conclusions Both risk stratification rules are of great clinical significance for screening and judging non-high-risk patients,which can be flexibly applied according to the patients’ clinical conditions.
关键词
晕厥 /
危险分层 /
ROSE规则 /
SFSR规则
Key words
syncope /
risk stratification /
ROSE rule /
SFSR rule
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] Soteriades E S,Evans J C,Larson M G,et al. Incidence and prognosis of syncope[J]. N Engl J Med,2002,347(12):878-885.
[2] 中华心血管病杂志编辑委员会, 中国生物医学工程学会心律分会, 中国老年学和老年医学学会心血管病专业委员会, 等.晕厥诊断与治疗中国专家共识(2018)[J].中华心血管病杂志,2019,47(2):96-107.
[3] Reed M J,Newby D E,Coull A J,et al. The ROSE (risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department) study[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol,2010,55(8):713-721.
[4] Quinn J V,Stiell I G,Mcdermott D A,et al. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes[J]. Ann Emerg Med,2004,43(2):233-237.
[5] Sutton R,Brignole M,Benditt D,et al. The Diagnosis and Management of Syncope[J]. Curr Hypertens Rep,2010,12(5):316-322.
[6] Reed M J,Newby D E,Coull A J,et al. Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department: The ROSE Study[J]. J Emerg Med,2009,37(2):222.
[7] Sruamsiri K,Chenthanakij B,Tantiwut A,et al. Usefulness of syncope guidelines in risk stratification of syncope in emergency department[J]. J Med Assoc Thai,2014,97(2):173-178.
[8] Saccilotto R T,Nickel C H,Bucher H C,et al. San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict short-term serious outcomes: a systematic review[J]. Can Med Assoc J,2011,183(15):E1116-1126.
[9] Dipaola F,Costantino G,Perego F,et al. San Francisco Syncope Rule, Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio risk score, and clinical judgment in the assessment of short-term outcome of syncope[J].Am J Emerg Med,2010,28(4):432-439.
[10] Strickberger S A,Benson D W,Biaggioni I,et al. AHA/ACCF Scientific Statement on the evaluation of syncope:from the American Heart Association Councils on Clinical Cardiology,Cardiovascular Nursing,Cardiovascular Disease in the Young,and Stroke,and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group;and the American College of Cardiology Foundation;in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society;endorsed by the American Autonomic Society[J].Circulation,2006,113:316-327.
[11] 刘春艳,邢 岩.96例晕厥患者的病因分析[J].中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2017,19(9):971-973.
[12] 吴 瑛,陈若菡,孙 奇,等.单中心晕厥住院患者的病因分析[J]. 中国循环杂志, 2018,33(6):596-600.
[13] Pabón G M,Alvarado J,Rojano M,et al.Frequency of adverse events in the short and medium term in patients with syncope classified as high and low risk according to the OESIL score[J].Rev Colomb Cardiol,2017,24(3):241-249.
[14] 范利斌,孟 浩,周 静,等.以晕厥、小便失禁为首发症状的重症急性胰腺炎1例[J].武警医学,2019, 30(1):81-82.
[15] 孟永霞,郑卫华,杜军保.晕厥分类、诊断及治疗进展[J].武警医学,2008,19(6):543-544.
[16] Toarta C,Mukarram M,Arcot K,et al. Syncope Prognosis Based on Emergency Department Diagnosis: A Prospective Cohort Study[J]. Acad Emerg Med,2018,25(4):388-396.
PDF(617 KB)
