论著 · 临床研究

急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者再出血预测模型和新型评分系统的构建

  • 奚黎婷 ,
  • 朱锦舟 ,
  • 虞晨燕 ,
  • 倪柳菁 ,
  • 许春芳 ,
  • 吴爱荣
展开
  • 苏州大学附属第一医院消化内科,苏州 215006
奚黎婷(1995—),女,硕士生;电子信箱:celia807@foxmail.com
吴爱荣,电子信箱:arwu@suda.edu.cn

网络出版日期: 2021-12-03

基金资助

2019年苏州市“科教兴卫”青年科技项目(KJXW2019001)

A new rebleeding prediction model and scoring system for patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

  • Li-ting XI ,
  • Jin-zhou ZHU ,
  • Chen-yan YU ,
  • Liu-jing NI ,
  • Chun-fang XU ,
  • Ai-rong WU
Expand
  • Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China
WU Ai-rong, E-mail: arwu@suda.edu.cn.

Online published: 2021-12-03

Supported by

2019 Suzhou Youth Science and Technology Project of "Science, Education and Health"(KJXW2019001)

摘要

目的·分析急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血(acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding,ANVUGIB)患者再出血的独立危险因素,构建再出血预测模型及风险评分系统。方法·收集2016年1月1日至2019年12月31日苏州大学附属第一医院收治的686例ANVUGIB患者的病例资料,记录患者的一般情况、临床表现、实验室检查结果、内镜下表现、病情转归等,并计算所有患者的内镜前Baylor、内镜后Baylor、Rockall、GBS(Glasgow Blatchford Score)、CSMCPI(Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index)、AIMS65、MAP(ASH)评分。将所收集的病例按7∶3随机分成建模组(n=481)和验证组(n=205),使用建模组数据建立模型。将单因素分析中有意义的变量(P<0.1)纳入Logistic回归分析,探究再出血的独立危险因素,构建再出血风险预测模型并进行内部验证,分别评价建模组及验证组的区分度及校准度,最终将模型转换为风险评分系统。受试者操作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线效能的比较采用Delong统计法。结果·低收缩压,低血红蛋白水平,美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)分级>3级,内镜下呈现为血凝块、血管裸露、活动性出血是再出血的独立危险因素。预测模型的ROC曲线下面积(area under the curve,AUC)为0.892(95% CI 0.838~0.946,P=0.001),Hosmer-Lemeshow检验P=0.934;内部验证AUC=0.915(95% CI 0.851~0.980,P=0.001);Hosmer-Lemeshow检验P=0.871。该风险评分系统的AUC=0.882(95% CI 0.823~0.942),对再出血的预测能力优于除MAP(ASH)评分以外的其余各项评分(均P<0.05)。结论·该研究建立的评分系统对ANVUGIB再出血具有良好的预测能力,具有一定的临床应用价值。

本文引用格式

奚黎婷 , 朱锦舟 , 虞晨燕 , 倪柳菁 , 许春芳 , 吴爱荣 . 急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者再出血预测模型和新型评分系统的构建[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2021 , 41(11) : 1491 -1497 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2021.11.013

Abstract

Objective

·To explore independent risk factors of rebleeding and construct a prediction model and risk scoring system of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB).

Methods

·A total of 686 patients with ANVUGIB admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019 were collected. The general conditions, clinical characteristics, laboratory results, endoscopic findings and prognosis were recorded. The Baylor score, Rockall score, Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Predictive Index(CSMCPI), AIMS65 and MAP (ASH) for each patient were calculated. The collected data were randomly divided into a training set (n=481) and a validation set (n=205). A new prediction model for rebleeding was established by binary Logistic regression based on the training set data. The discrimination and calibration of the training and validation set were evaluated respectively, and then the model was transformed into a risk scoring system. The comparisons between the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were based on the Delong test.

Results

·Binary Logistic regression analysis showed that low systolic blood pressure, low hemoglobin level, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade>3, and endoscopic findings of clots, visible vessels and active bleeding were independent risk factors for rebleeding. The area under the curve (AUC) of the prediction model was 0.892 (95% CI 0.838?0.946, P=0.001), Hosmer-Lemeshow test P=0.934. The validation set AUC=0.915 (95% CI 0.851?0.980, P=0.001), Hosmer-Lemeshow test P=0.871. The scoring system (AUC=0.882, 95% CI 0.823?0.942) was better at predicting rebleeding than all other scores mentioned except MAP (ASH) score (P<0.05).

Conclusion

·The scoring system could predict rebleeding after ANVUGIB, which could be an option in clinical practice.

参考文献

1 Van Leerdam ME. Epidemiology of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding [J]. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol, 2008, 22(2): 209-224.
2 Rotondano G. Epidemiology and diagnosis of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding[J]. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 2014, 43(4): 643-663.
3 Jiménez Rosales R, Martínez-Cara JG, Vadillo-Calles F, et al. Analysis of rebleeding in cases of an upper gastrointestinal bleed in a single center series[J]. Revista Espanola De Enfermedades Dig, 2019, 111(3): 189-192.
4 ?中华内科杂志?编辑委员会, ?中华医学杂志?编辑委员会, ?中华消化杂志?编辑委员会,等. 急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血诊治指南(2018年,杭州)[J]. 中华内科杂志, 2019, 58(3): 173-180.
5 Kim MS, Choi J, Shin WC. AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2019, 19(1): 136.
6 Stanley AJ. Update on risk scoring systems for patients with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2012, 18(22): 2739-2744.
7 Ebrahimi Bakhtavar H, Morteza Bagi HR, Rahmani F, et al. Clinical scoring systems in predicting the outcome of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding; a narrative review[J]. Emerg (Tehran), 2017, 5(1): e36.
8 任海霞, 王建华, 单铁英, 等. 非静脉曲张性上消化道出血内镜治疗术后再出血危险因素分析[J]. 临床误诊误治, 2016, 29(8): 48-52.
9 彭敦煌. 消化内镜治疗非静脉曲张性上消化道出血后再出血危险因素分析[J]. 中外医学研究, 2019, 17(35): 152-154.
10 García-Iglesias P, Villoria A, Suarez D, et al. Meta-analysis: predictors of rebleeding after endoscopic treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2011, 34(8): 888-900.
11 Lee YJ, Kim ES, Hah YJ, et al. Chronic kidney disease, hemodynamic instability, and endoscopic high-risk appearance are associated with 30-day rebleeding in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding[J]. J Korean Med Sci, 2013, 28(10): 1500-1506.
12 Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL. ASA physical status classifications[J]. Anesthesiology, 1978, 49(4): 239-243.
13 Redondo-Cerezo E, Vadillo-Calles F, Stanley AJ, et al. MAP(ASH): a new scoring system for the prediction of intervention and mortality in upper gastrointestinal bleeding[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2020, 35(1): 82-89.
14 Marmo R, Koch M, Cipolletta L, et al. Predictive factors of mortality from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a multicenter study[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2008, 103(7): 1639-1647; quiz1648.
15 Laine L, Peterson WL. Bleeding peptic ulcer[J]. New Engl J Med, 1994, 331(11): 717-727.
16 Bai Y, Du YQ, Wang D, et al. Peptic ulcer bleeding in China: a multicenter endoscopic survey of 1006 patients[J]. J Dig Dis, 2014, 15(1): 5-11.
17 Lee JG, Turnipseed S, Romano PS, et al. Endoscopy-based triage significantly reduces hospitalization rates and costs of treating upper GI bleeding: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 1999, 50(6): 755-761.
18 González-González JA, Monreal-Robles R, García-Compean D, et al. Nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly people: clinical outcomes and prognostic factors[J]. J Dig Dis, 2017, 18(4): 212-221.
19 Nakamura S, Matsumoto T, Sugimori H, et al. Emergency endoscopy for acute gastrointestinal bleeding: prognostic value of endoscopic hemostasis and the AIMS65 score in Japanese patients[J]. Dig Endosc, 2014, 26(3): 369-376.
20 孙喜斌, 张玉虹, 左路广, 等. 血清IL-6与红细胞分布宽度联合检测对上消化道再出血的预测价值[J]. 山东医药, 2020, 60(19): 50-53.
21 Yue W, Liu Y, Jiang W, et al. Prealbumin and D-dimer as prognostic indicators for rebleeding in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding [J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2020, 66:1949-1956.
22 Lee HH, Park JM, Lee SW, et al. C-reactive protein as a prognostic indicator for rebleeding in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding[J]. Dig Liver Dis, 2015, 47(5): 378-383.
文章导航

/