切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普通外科学文献(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (05) : 349 -352. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2021.05.007

论著

主动脉夹层危险因素监测评分在急性主动脉夹层患者快速分诊中的应用
陈月娥1, 徐丽青1, 魏冬花1, 李元1, 李继红1,()   
  1. 1. 510080 广州,中山大学附属第一医院急诊科
  • 收稿日期:2021-02-27 出版日期:2021-09-28
  • 通信作者: 李继红

Application of the aortic dissection detection risk score in rapid screening in emergency triage of patients with aortic dissection

Yuee Chen1, Liqing Xu1, Donghua Wei1, Yuan Li1, Jihong Li1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Emergency, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China
  • Received:2021-02-27 Published:2021-09-28
  • Corresponding author: Jihong Li
引用本文:

陈月娥, 徐丽青, 魏冬花, 李元, 李继红. 主动脉夹层危险因素监测评分在急性主动脉夹层患者快速分诊中的应用[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2021, 15(05): 349-352.

Yuee Chen, Liqing Xu, Donghua Wei, Yuan Li, Jihong Li. Application of the aortic dissection detection risk score in rapid screening in emergency triage of patients with aortic dissection[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(05): 349-352.

目的

探讨主动脉夹层危险因素监测评分(ADD-RS)在急性主动脉夹层(AD)患者快速分诊的应用。

方法

运用ADD-RS表对2018年1月至2019年12月中山大学附属第一医院就诊且主诉为急性胸背部疼痛或腹痛的318例患者进行分诊初筛。主动脉增强CT检查作为AD确诊"金标准",比较ADD-RS初筛结果与主动脉增强CT确诊结果。

结果

通过ADD-RS表初筛患者最终经主动脉增强CT检查,确诊AD患者(AD组)50例,非AD患者(非AD组)268例,比较两组的一般资料及危险因素评分结果,显示AD组患者高血压比例、体质指数、疼痛评分均明显高于非AD组(P<0.05),年龄、糖尿病比例均低于非AD组(P<0.05);AD组的ADD-RS评分明显高于非AD组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。ADD-RS预测AD的ROC曲线下面积为0.852(95% CI:0.796~0.908),敏感度为0.940,特异度为0.373。

结论

ADD-RS适用于快速筛查AD,可作为急性AD急诊分诊的可靠工具。

Objective

To investigate the application of aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS) in rapid triage of acute aortic dissection (AD).

Methods

From January 2018 to December 2019, 318 patients with acute chest and back pain or abdominal pain in the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were evaluated with ADD-RS. Aortic enhanced CT examination was the golden standard for the diagnosis of aortic dissection. The preliminary screening results of ADD-RS were compared with the diagnostic results of aortic enhanced CT.

Results

After initial screening by ADD-RS, 50 patients were diagnosed with AD (AD group) and 268 patients were diagnosed with non-AD (non-AD group) by aortic enhanced CT examination. The general clinical information and ADD risk scores of the two groups were compared. The results showed that the hypertension rate, BMI and pain score in AD group were significantly higher than those in non-AD group (P<0.05). AD group were younger and the proportion of diabetes was lower than those in non-AD group (P<0.05). The ADD-RS of AD group was significantly higher than that of non-AD group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The maximum area under the ROC curve for AD predicted by ADD-RS was 0.852 (95% CI: 0.796-0.908), and its sensitivity and specificity were 0.940 and 0.373 respectively.

Conclusion

ADD-RS deserves as an early and reliable screening tool for acute AD in emergency triage.

表1 主动脉夹层危险因素评分表
表2 AD组和非AD组临床基线资料比较
表3 AD组和非AD组疼痛评分比较[例(%)]
表4 AD组与非AD组的ADD-RS评分比较[例(%)]
图1 ADD-RS筛查急性主动脉夹层的ROC曲线
[3]
Zhan S, Hong S, Shan-Shan L, et al. Misdiagnosis of aortic dissection: experience of 361 patients[J]. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich), 2012, 14(4): 256-260.
[4]
Hansen MS, Nogareda GJ, Hutchison SJ. Frequency of and inappropriate treatment of misdiagnosis of acute aortic dissection[J]. Am J Cardiol, 2007, 99(6): 852-856.
[5]
Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine[J]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2010, 76(2): E43-E86.
[6]
Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)[J]. Eur Heart J, 2014, 35(41): 2873-2926.
[7]
Rogers AM, Hermann LK, Booher AM, et al. Sensitivity of the aortic dissection detection risk score, a novel guideline-based tool for identification of acute aortic dissection at initial presentation[J]. Circulation, 2011, 123(20): 2213-2218.
[8]
Ohno-Urabe S, Aoki H, Nishihara M, et al. Role of macrophage socs3 in the pathogenesis of aortic dissection[J]. J Am Heart Assoc, 2018, 7(2): e007389.
[9]
Caesar C, Lyle AN, Joseph G, et al. Cyclic strain and hypertension increase osteopontin expression in the aorta[J]. Cell Mol Bioeng, 2017, 10(2): 144-152.
[10]
石烽, 王志维. 主动脉夹层发病相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2020, 22(1): 28-31.
[11]
Luo Y, Huang Z, Liao J, et al. Downregulated GTCPH I/BH4 pathway and decreased function of circulating endothelial progenitor cells and their relationship with endothelial dysfunction in overweight postmenopausal women[J]. Stem Cells Int, 2018, 2018: 4756263.
[12]
高娟,余娟,杨慧敏.急性主动脉综合征患者疼痛相关因素分析[J]. 护理学杂志, 2013, 28(5): 33-34.
[13]
Thompson A, Cooper JA, Fabricius M, et al. An analysis of drug modulation of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth through 25 years of surveillance[J]. J Vasc Surg, 2010, 52(1): 55-61.
[14]
Hsu CY, Su YW, Chen YT, et al. Association between use of oral-antidiabetic drugs and the risk of aortic aneurysm: A nested case-control analysis[J]. Cardiovasc Diabetol, 2016, 15(1): 125.
[15]
Raffort J, Lareyre F, Clément M, et al. Diabetes and aortic aneurysm: current state of the art[J]. Cardiovasc Res, 2018, 114(13): 1702-1713.
[16]
蒋艳妮,杜少兰,朱波,等.胸痛中心急诊绿色通道护理流程对提高主动脉夹层患者治疗效果的作用[J].临床医学研究与实践, 2019, 4(8): 150-151.
[1]
Olsson C, Thelin S, Ståhle E, et al. Thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection: increasing prevalence and improved outcomes reported in a nationwide population-based study of more than 14,000 cases from 1987 to 2002[J]. Circulation2006, 114(24): 2611-2618.
[2]
Howard DP, Banerjee A, Fairhead JF, et al. Population-based study of incidence, risk factors, outcome, and prognosis of ischemic peripheral arterial events: implications for prevention[J]. Circulation, 2015, 132(19): 1805-1815.
[1] 刘欢颜, 华扬, 贾凌云, 赵新宇, 刘蓓蓓. 颈内动脉闭塞病变管腔结构和血流动力学特征分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 809-815.
[2] 马艳波, 华扬, 刘桂梅, 孟秀峰, 崔立平. 中青年人颈动脉粥样硬化病变的相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 822-826.
[3] 米洁, 陈晨, 李佳玲, 裴海娜, 张恒博, 李飞, 李东杰. 儿童头面部外伤特点分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 511-515.
[4] 黄应雄, 叶子, 蒋鹏, 詹红, 姚陈, 崔冀. 急性肠系膜静脉血栓形成致透壁性肠坏死的临床危险因素分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 413-421.
[5] 张再博, 王冰雨, 焦志凯, 檀碧波. 胃癌术后下肢深静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 475-480.
[6] 唐旭, 韩冰, 刘威, 陈茹星. 结直肠癌根治术后隐匿性肝转移危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 16-20.
[7] 吴方园, 孙霞, 林昌锋, 张震生. HBV相关肝硬化合并急性上消化道出血的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 45-47.
[8] 陈旭渊, 罗仕云, 李文忠, 李毅. 腺源性肛瘘经手术治疗后创面愈合困难的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 82-85.
[9] 晏晴艳, 雍晓梅, 罗洪, 杜敏. 成都地区老年转移性乳腺癌的预后及生存因素研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 636-638.
[10] 莫闲, 杨闯. 肝硬化患者并发门静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 678-683.
[11] 毛永欢, 仝瀚文, 缪骥, 王行舟, 沈晓菲, 喻春钊. 造口旁疝危险因素预测模型构建[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 682-687.
[12] 倪文凯, 齐翀, 许小丹, 周燮程, 殷庆章, 蔡元坤. 结直肠癌患者术后发生延迟性肠麻痹的影响因素分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 484-489.
[13] 陆猛桂, 黄斌, 李秋林, 何媛梅. 蜂蛰伤患者发生多器官功能障碍综合征的危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 1010-1015.
[14] 李达, 张大涯, 陈润祥, 张晓冬, 黄士美, 陈晨, 曾凡, 陈世锔, 白飞虎. 海南省东方市幽门螺杆菌感染现状的调查与相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 858-864.
[15] 李琪, 黄钟莹, 袁平, 关振鹏. 基于某三级医院的ICU多重耐药菌医院感染影响因素的分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 777-782.
阅读次数
全文


摘要