非静脉曲张性上消化道出血内镜治疗成功后再出血的危险因素分析

目的：探讨消化内镜治疗非静脉曲张性上消化道出血( NVUGIB)止血成功后再出血的危险因素，寻找降低再出血的方法。方法选取首次内镜治疗止血成功的360例NVUGIB患者作为研究对象，根据再出血情况分为再出血组(n=97)和未出血组(n=263)，比较两组患者的临床资料，分析再出血原因。结果再出血组与未出血组在年龄、性别、病变类型、血尿素氮水平方面差异无显著性(P>0.05)；再出血组在血小板、开始治疗时间、单一内镜治疗、入院时休克、血红蛋白<90g/L、Ⅰa 级出血、出血病变直径≥2.0cm、支持治疗不足、后续质子泵抑制剂(PPIs)不足、恶性肿瘤出血方面，与未出血组比较差异均有显著性(P<0.05)；Logistic 回归显示单一内镜治疗、血红蛋白<90 g/L、Ⅰa级出血、出血病变直径≥2.0cm、支持治疗不足、后续PPIs 治疗不足、恶性肿瘤出血是NVUGIB止血成功后再出血的独立危险因素。结论单一方法内镜治疗、血红蛋白<90g/L、病灶呈喷射样出血、出血病变直径≥2.0cm、支持治疗不足、后续PPIs治疗不足、恶性肿瘤出血是消化内镜治疗NVUGIB止血成功后再出血的独立危险因素。     

非静脉曲张性消化道出血患者再出血的危险因素分析

目的探讨非静脉曲张性消化道出血(ANVUGIB)患者再出血的危险因素及内镜诊治疗效。方法选取我院2017年1月～2018年1月收治的150例ANVUGIB患者,所有患者均经内镜检查并获得明确诊断。根据内镜术后是否出血将患者分成观察组45例和对照组105例,观察组为再出血患者,对照组为未出血患者。分析ANVUGIB再出血的危险因素。结果再出血单因素分析发现,肿瘤出血治疗、休克指数1分、尿素氨浓度10.32mmol/L、输血治疗、肝脏疾病、多器官衰竭、单内镜治疗、A级出血治疗、出血病变直径≥2.0cm、开始内镜治疗时间24h、Rockall评分5分、Blatchford评分6分是ANVUGIB再出血的单危险因素;其中肿瘤出血治疗、休克指数1分、尿素氨浓度10.32mmol/L、输血治疗、肝脏疾病、多器官衰竭、单内镜治疗、A级出血治疗、出血病变直径≥2.0cm、开始内镜治疗时间24h、Rockall评分5分、Blatchford评分6分是ANVUGIB再出血独立危险因素。45例再出血患者经内镜配合抑酸药物止血,所有患者均止血成功,成功率100%。结论 ANVUGIB再出血的危险因素包括输血治疗、肝脏疾病、多器官衰竭等。内镜术前综合评估ANVUGIB再出血的危险因素是提高内镜疗效有可靠途径。     

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

目的探讨非静脉曲张性上消化道出血内镜治疗术后再出血的危险因素。方法选择2010年1月—2015年1月在河北工程大学附属医院住院行内镜下治疗的非静脉曲张性上消化道出血520例,按照术后有无再出血分为再出血组(100例)和未再出血组(420例)两组,详细记录比较两组一般资料和实验室检查结果,寻找内镜治疗后再出血的独立危险因素。结果两组年龄、性别、饮酒史、抽烟史、消化道出血史、Ⅰb级出血、Ⅱa级出血、镜下治疗方法、应用药物情况及血小板≤100×109/L、白蛋白≤38 g/L、活化部分凝血活酶时间≥37 s及纤维蛋白原≤2 g/L情况比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),而Ⅰa级出血、出血病变直径2 cm、输血量800 ml、合并慢性肾功能不全、合并肝硬化、血红蛋白≤90 g/L及凝血酶原时间(PT)≥17 s情况比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示Ⅰa级出血、出血病变直径2 cm、输血量800 ml、合并慢性肾功能不全、合并肝硬化、血红蛋白≤90 g/L及PT≥17 s为非静脉曲张性上消化道出血内镜治疗术后再出血的独立危险因素。结论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包括Ⅰa级出血、出血病变直径2 cm、输血量800 ml、合并慢性肾功能不全、合并肝硬化、血红蛋白≤90 g/L和PT≥17 s。对于具有此类危险因素的非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者要及时镜下止血,在积极输血和纠正低血红蛋白同时,密切监测凝血功能及肝、肾功能,以防止再出血。     

肝硬化门静脉高压症致EGVB经内镜下止血术后早期再出血的危险因素分析

目的探讨影响肝硬化门静脉高压症导致的食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血经内镜下止血术后早期再出血的危险因素。方法选取肝硬化门静脉高压症食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血并行内镜下止血术的患者452例,根据内镜下止血术后是否再出血分为出血组和未出血组,分析患者一般资料和各指标与再出血的关系,对术后早期再出血的危险因素行单因素及多因素Logistic回归分析。结果两组患者的血肌酐、凝血酶原时间、白蛋白、CTP评分、镜下表现的差异有统计学意义(P0.05),单因素Logistic回归分析显示血肌酐、凝血酶原时间、白蛋白、CTP评分、镜下出血与术后再出血存在相关性,进一步多因素Logistic回归分析提示凝血酶原时间(OR=3.743,P=0.002)、CTP评分(OR=2.716,P=0.015)、镜下出血(OR=1.863,P=0.009)为再出血的独立危险因素,白蛋白(OR=0.692,P=0.001)为再出血的保护因素。结论凝血酶原时间延长、CTP评分高、镜下出血为影响食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血患者术后再出血的独立危险因素,白蛋白高为术后再出血的保护因素。     

Glasgow-Blatchford和AIMS65评分系统在急性消化道出血患者预后评估中的价值

目的探讨Glasgow-Blatchford(GBS)和AIMS65评分对急诊内镜检查的消化道出血患者的预后价值。方法选取2009年1月-2011年1月在该院需行急诊消化道内镜检查的急性消化道出血患者作为研究对象,对其临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 180例符合条件的患者进行了220例次内镜检查(121例食管胃十二指肠镜检查,99例结肠镜检查)。随访期间,46例(25.56%)患者出现再出血。86例患者(47.78%)为低危GBS评分(分数≤11),94例患者(52.22%)为高危GBS评分(分数≥12)。高危组与低危组患者再出血频率差异无统计学意义,而高危组死亡率(29.79%)明显高于低危组(10.47%,P0.001)。单独研究下消化道出血组时,高危组死亡率(26.93%)仍高于低危组(6.01%,P0.05)。94例患者(52.22%)为高危AIMS65评分(0分或1分),86例患者(47.78%)为低危AIMS65评分(≥3分)。高危组与低危组患者再出血频率差异无统计学意义,而高危组死亡率(32.98%)明显高于低危组(6.98%,P0.001)。单独研究下消化道出血组时,高危组死亡率(28.12%)仍高于低危组(5.93%,P0.05)。Cox多变量分析显示输血、并存肿瘤、未使用内镜止血和高AIMS65评分是低生存率的独立预后因素。结论 GBS和AIMS65两种评分中,AIMS65评分是急性胃肠道出血患者有效的预后因子。     

上消化道出血患者术后早期再出血风险预测模型的构建及效果验证

目的 通过分析筛选上消化道出血患者内镜止血术后早期再出血的危险因素,构建风险预测模型并验证预测效果。方法 选择医院2020年1月—2021年12月收治的上消化道出血内镜治疗患者共160例为训练集,选择医院2022年1—10月收治上消化道出血内镜治疗患者共40例为验证集。收集患者的相关资料。利用训练集,采用单因素及多因素Logistic回归分析筛选早期再出血的危险因素,据此构建风险预测模型;采用验证集检验其预测效果。结果 训练集早期再出血患者共34例,单因素及多因素Logistic回归分析显示,上消化道出血患者内镜止血术后护理早期再出血危险因素有年龄≥60岁、入院血红蛋白<110 g/L、凝血酶原时间≥17 s、病变直径>2 cm、Blatchford评分≥6分、Rockall评分≥5分、Forrest分级Ⅰ级（P<0.05）。据此构建的预测模型ROC曲线下面积为0.940(95%CI:0.893～0.972),最佳截断值为24.80%,灵敏度为81.82%,特异度为91.20%,最大约登指数为0.730。以>24.80%为预测标准,验证集模型预测的灵敏度为80....     

上消化道出血病人消化内镜治疗后再出血风险预测模型的构建

目的:构建上消化道出血病人消化内镜治疗后再出血风险预测模型,并检验其预测效果.方法:选择医院2018年10月—2020年10月收治的上消化道出血病人480例,按两组基础资料匹配性原则将其分为模型构建组、模型验证组,均为240例,统计模型构建组再出血病人例数,并通过单因素分析、多因素Logistic回归分析筛选上消化道出血病人消化内镜治疗后再出血的危险因素,以此为基础构建再出血风险预测模型,并将模型用于验证组,以检验其预测效果.结果:模型构建组再出血病人共64例,通过单因素、多因素Logistic回归分析得到,上消化道出血病人消化内镜治疗后再出血危险因素有年龄≥75岁、Blatchford评分≥6分、Rockall评分≥5分、Forrest分级Ⅰ级、出血病变直径>2 cm、入院时血红蛋白值<100 g/L、血小板计数<100×109/L(P<0.05);构建的预测模型ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.757,约登指数最大值为0.658,对应灵敏度、特异度分别为91.9％、73.9％,对应截断值为0.035;将预测模型应用于模型构建组,得到模型预测准确率为98.75％.结论:上消化道出血病人经消化内镜治疗后仍存在再出血风险,而研究构建的预测模型能实现对再出血风险的准确预测,为临床预防护理提供了依据,能降低再出血发生率.     

经内镜治疗的非静脉曲张性上消化道出血患者再出血的危险因素分析及护理对策研究

目的分析消化内镜治疗的上消化道出血患者发生再出血的危险因素,总结其护理对策。方法回顾性分析本院消化内科185例上消化道出血患者各项临床资料,纳入时间为2019年5月-2020年12月,患者均接受消化内镜治疗,根据其治疗后是否再出血分为未出血组、再出血组。采用单因素、多因素Logistic回归分析其治疗后再出血的危险因素并总结护理对策。结果185例上消化道出血患者治疗后有48例(25.95%)发生再出血。多因素Logistic回归分析后,年龄≥75岁、血红蛋白<90 g/L、出血病变直径>2 cm、支持治疗不足、凝血酶原时间≥17 s为经消化内镜治疗的上消化道出血患者再出血的主要危险因素(P<0.05)。结论上消化道出血患者消化内镜治疗后是否再出血与其年龄、血红蛋白、出血病变直径、凝血酶原时间及支持治疗水平相关,给予患者可改善血红蛋白及临床症状的优质护理服务能够有效降低再出血率。     

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探讨

选择2014年1月~2016年1月在我院接受消化内镜治疗后止血成功的105例NVUGIB患者作为对象。按照患者治疗后是否出现再出血分为对照组(未出血,n=88)、观察组(再出血,n=17),对比两组患者相关临床资料,分析导致再出血发生的主要危险因素。在患者性别、年龄、血尿素氮水平、病变类型等比较上,两组无显著性差异(P0.05);在入院时休克、单一内镜治疗、HGB90g/L、支持治疗缺乏、Ⅰa级出血、后续PPIs不足等方面的比较上,两组存在显著性差异(P0.05)。NVUGIB患者接受内镜治疗后再出血发生危险因素主要入院时休克、HGB90g/L、支持治疗缺乏、后续PPIs不足、Ⅰa级出血等,应高度重视并实施针对性处理。     

消化性溃疡出血内镜下注射治疗后再出血的危险因素探讨

目的：探讨消化性溃疡出血内镜注射止血后再出血可能的危险因素。方法：对23例一周内再出血及135例无再出血患者的临床及内镜表现特征进行单因素非条件logistic回归分析，在此基础上进一步进行多因素的logistic回归分析。结果：单因素分析有显著意义的变量为入院时休克、血红蛋白浓度、血尿素氮浓度、内镜下喷血表现、内镜下渗血表现。多因素非条件logistic回归分析发现，再出血与入院时休克、内镜下喷血、内镜下渗血相关有显著性意义。结论：入院时休克、内镜下活动性出血是内镜注射治疗后再出血的独立危险因素。     

肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血急诊内镜下治疗后早期再出血的影响因素

目的探讨肝硬化并发食管胃底静脉曲张急性破裂出血患者急诊内镜下治疗早期再发出血的影响因素。方法将52例肝硬化并发食管胃底曲张静脉急性破裂出血患者按内镜下治疗后是否再出血分为再出血组和未出血组。每组26例。采用单因素分析临床各项指标与内镜下治疗后早期再发出血的关系;Logistic回归模型分析影响内镜下止血效果的主要因素。结果单因素分析结果显示：2组在内镜下治疗方法、有无门静脉栓子比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。再出血组的白细胞计数、血小板计数和白蛋白均低于未出血组,谷丙转氨酶、尿素氮、凝血酶原时间、门静脉直径及脾脏厚度均高于未出血组,但2组比较差异均无统计学意义（均P〉O．05）。Logistic回归分析结果显示：内镜下治疗方法、有无门静脉栓子是预测肝硬化食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血急诊内镜下治疗早期再出血的预测因素。结论内镜下治疗方法、有无门脉栓子是肝硬化并发食管胃底静脉曲张急性破裂出血内镜下治疗后早期再出血的预测因素。     

qSOFA评分对急性上消化道出血病情严重程度的预测价值

目的:评估快速序贯器官衰竭(qSOFA)评分对急性上消化道出血病情严重程度的预测价值,并与Glasgow Blatchford评分(GBS)和内镜检查前的Rockall评分(pRS)的预测价值进行比较.方法:回顾性选取河北大学附属医院急诊科收治的917例急性上消化道出血患者,收集所有患者的临床资料,将需要进行输血治疗、...     

Comparison of risk scoring systems in predicting clinical outcome at upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients in an emergency unit

Background

Admission Rockall score (RS), full RS, and Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) can all be used to stratify the risk in patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in the emergency department (ED). The aim of our study was to compare both admission and full RS and GBS in predicting outcomes at UGIB patients in a Romanian ED.

Patients and Methods

A total of 229 consecutive patients with UGIB were enrolled in the study. Patients were followed up 60 days after admission to ED because of UGIB episode to determine cases of rebleeding or death during this period. By using areas under the curve (AUCs), we compared the 3 scores in terms of identifying the most predictive score of unfavorable outcomes.

Results

Rebleeding rate was 40.2% (92 patients), and mortality rate was 18.7% (43 patients). For the prediction of mortality, full RS was superior to GBS (AUC, 0.825 vs 0.723; P = .05) and similar to admission RS (AUC, 0.792). Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score had the highest accuracy in detecting patients who needed transfusion (AUC, 0.888) and was superior to both the admission RS and full RS (AUC, 0.693 and 0.750, respectively) (P < .0001). In predicting the need for intervention, the GBS was superior to both the admission RS and full RS (AUC, 0.868, 0.674, and 0.785, respectively) (P < .0001 and P = .04, respectively).

Conclusions

The GBS can be used to predict need for intervention and transfusion in patients with UGIB in our ED, whereas full RS can be successfully used to stratify the mortality risk in these patients.     

Risk assessment and prediction of rebleeding in bleeding gastroduodenal ulcer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The aims of this study were to identify risk factors for recurrence of hemorrhage in bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers after endoscopic injection therapy, and to develop a simple and relevant prognostic score which could be used to assess the early risk of recurrence and the residual risk of rebleeding. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted from January 1995 to December 1998, in 738 patients who were admitted to our department for acute bleeding peptic ulcer and who underwent endoscopic examination. Ulcers with active bleeding or signs of recent bleeding were treated with injection therapy using epinephrine (1/10,000) and 1% polidocanol. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that liver cirrhosis, recent surgery, systolic blood pressure below 100 mmHg, hematemesis, Forrest classification, and ulcer size and site were significantly predictive variables for the recurrence of hemorrhage. Among these, Forrest classification was the most important. The overall accuracy of the predictive model was 71% (95% CI = 63 - 79%). The model showed a better sensitivity of 90% for early rebleeding (< 48 hours) than for late rebleeding (> or = 48 hours) where the sensitivity was 65 %. A prognostic score was obtained and patients were classified into four risk classes: very low (VL), low (L), high (H), and very high (VH). The rebleeding rates for the four classes were 0%, 7.9%, 31.8% and 67.9%, and the mortality rates were 5.9%, 8.6%, 13.9% and 35.7%, respectively. The residual risk of rebleeding after 48 hours was 0%, 3.3%, 10.4%, and 14.3% in the VL, L, H and VH classes, respectively. After 5 days the residual risk was under 4% in all classes. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the proposed prognostic score, which is easily obtained after emergency endoscopy, is useful in clinical practice because it can identify patients with different levels of rebleeding risk. It can be helpful in patient management and decision making for discharge.     

Risk factors influencing the outcome of peptic ulcer bleeding in end stage renal diseases after initial endoscopic haemostasis

Background and Aims: Patients suffering from peptic ulcer (PU) bleeding who have end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) may encounter more adverse outcomes. The primary objective is to investigate the risk factors that influence the outcomes of ESRD and chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with PU bleeding after successful initial endoscopic haemostasis. Methods: A total of 540 patients with PU bleeding after initial endoscopic haemostasis in a tertiary hospital were investigated retrospectively. They were sorted into three groups after randomised age‐matched adjustment: ESRD group (n = 90), CKD group (n = 90) and control group (n = 360). Main outcome measurements were rebleeding, requirement for blood transfusion and surgery, length of hospital stay and mortality. Results: The rebleeding rates were 43% for the ESRD group vs. 21% for the CKD group vs. 12% for the control group (overall p = < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed the predictors of rebleeding were ESRD, time to endoscope, and non‐high‐dose proton‐pump inhibitors (PPI) users. The risk factors for bleeding‐related mortality were presence of moderate degree of CKD and ESRD group, time to endoscope, and Rockall score. All‐cause mortality was related to presence of moderate degree of CKD and ESRD group, platelet count, time to endoscope, Rockall score and length of hospital stay. Conclusions: ESRD patients who suffered from PU bleeding were at risk of excessive rebleeding and mortality with frequent occurrence of delayed rebleeding. This study suggests that early endoscopy for initial haemostasis and high‐dose intravenous PPI are associated with the reduction of rebleeding risk especially in patients with high Rockall scores.     

A prospective comparison of 3 scoring systems in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Background

The clinical severities of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are of a wide variety, ranging from insignificant bleeds to fatal outcomes. Several scoring systems have been designed to identify UGIB high- and low-risk patients. The aim of our study was to compare the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) with the preendoscopic Rockall score (PRS) and the complete Rockall score (CRS) in their utilities in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with UGIB.

Methods

We designed a prospective study to compare the performance of the GBS, PRS, and CRS in predicting primary and secondary outcomes in UGIB patients. The primary outcome included the need for blood transfusion, endoscopic therapy, or surgical intervention and was labeled as high risk. The secondary outcomes included rebleeding and 30-day mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each system were analyzed. A total of 303 consecutive patients admitted with UGIB during a 1-year period were enrolled.

Results

For prediction of high-risk group, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.808), PRS (0.604), and CRS (0.767). For prediction of rebleeding, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.674), PRS (0.602), and CRS (0.621). For prediction of mortality, AUC was obtained for GBS (0.513), PRS (0.703), and CRS (0.620).

Conclusions

In detecting high-risk patients with acute UGIB, GBS may be a useful risk stratification tool. However, none of the 3 score systems has good performance in predicting rebleeding and 30-day mortality because of low AUCs.     

Pre-Endoscopic Rockall and Blatchford Scores to Identify Which Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Gastrointestinal Bleed Do Not Need Endoscopic Hemostasis

Background

The pre-endoscopic Rockall Score (RS) and the Glasgow-Blatchford Scores (GBS) can help risk stratify patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed who are seen in the Emergency Department (ED). The RS and GBS have yet to be validated in a United States patient population for their ability to discriminate which ED patients with upper gastrointestinal bleed do not need endoscopic hemostasis.

Objective

We sought to determine whether patients who received a score of zero on either score (the lowest risk) in the ED still required upper endoscopic hemostasis during hospitalization.

Methods

Retrospective electronic medical record chart review was performed during a 3-year period (2007–2009) to identify patients with suspected upper gastrointestinal bleed by ED final diagnosis of gastrointestinal hemorrhage and related terms at a single urban academic ED. The RS and GBS were calculated from ED chart abstraction and the hospital records of admitted patients were queried for subsequent endoscopic hemostasis.

Results

Six hundred and ninety patients with gastrointestinal bleed were identified and 86% were admitted to the hospital. One hundred and twenty-two patients had an RS equal to zero; 67 (55%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 46–63%) of these patients were admitted to the hospital and 11 (16%; 95% CI 9–27%) received endoscopic hemostasis. Sixty-three patients had a GBS equal to zero; 15 (24%; 95% CI 15–36%) were admitted to the hospital and 2 (13%; 95% CI 4–38%) received endoscopic hemostasis.

Conclusions

Some patients who were identified as lowest risk by the GBS or RS still received endoscopic hemostasis during hospital admission. These clinical decision rules may be insufficiently sensitive to predict which patients do not require endoscopic hemostasis.     

Comparison of the quick SOFA score with Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scores in predicting severity in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

IntroductionUpper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the common causes of mortality and morbidity. The Rockall score (RS) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are frequently used in determining the prognosis and predicting in-hospital adverse events, such as mortality, re-bleeding, hospital stay, and blood transfusion requirements. The quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is easy and swift to calculate. The commonly used scores and the qSOFA score were compared and why and when these scores are most useful was investigated.Method133 patients admitted to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding over the period of a year, were evaluated in this retrospective study. The RS, GBS and qSOFA score were calculated for each patient, and their relationship with in-hospital adverse events, such as length of hospitalization, rebleeding, endoscopic treatment, blood transfusion requirements, and mortality, was investigated.ResultsThe mean overall GBS was 9.72 ± 3.72 (0–19), while that of patients who did not survive was 14.0 ± 1.1 (13–16), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.901, a cutoff value of 12.5, and specificity (Spe) and sensitivity (Sen) of 1 and 0.82, respectively. The median value of the GBS, in terms of transfusion need, was 7.12 ± 4.01 (0–15).(AUC = 0.752, cut-off = 9.5, Spe = 0.79, Sen = 0.69). The median value of the qSOFA score, in terms of intensive care need, was 1.73 ± 0.7 (0–3) (AUC = 0.921, cut-off = 0.5, Spe = 0.93, Sen = 0.79). The RS median, in terms of re-bleeding, was 8.22 ± 0.97 (6–9).ConclusionEarly use of risk stratification scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding is important due to the high risk of morbidity and mortality. All scoring systems were effective in predicting mortality, the need for intensive care, and re-bleeding. The GBS had a greater predictive power in terms of mortality and transfusion need, the qSOFA score for intensive care need, and the RS for re-bleeding. The simpler, more efficient, and more easily calculated qSOFA score can be used to estimate the severity of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.     

基于超声内镜及临床数据预测食管胃底静脉曲张治疗后再出血风险的列线图模型建立

目的 探讨基于超声内镜(EUS)及临床数据预测食管胃底静脉曲张(EGV)治疗后再出血风险的列线图模型建立。方法 回顾性分析2020年1月~2022年12月收治的186例EGV患者,根据治疗后出血情况分为出血组(102例)、未出血组(84例),收集两组患者EUS参数及临床数据资料,采用单因素分析、多因素Logistic回归分析EGV治疗后再出血的影响因素,并构建风险预测模型,采用受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)分析该模型的预测价值。结果 多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,红色征、腹水、CTP评分、para-EVC直径、奇静脉直径为EGV治疗后再出血的独立危险因素(P<0.05)。基于以上5个指标构建的风险预测模型的AUC为0.974,敏感度、特异度为93.1%、98.8%,均高于模型中各单项指标,且该风险预测模型拟合程度较好(Hosmer-Lemeshow x_²=7.303,P=0.504)。结论 红色征、腹水、CTP评分、para-EVC直径、奇静脉直径为EGV治疗后再出血的独立预测因素,基于以上5个指标构建的风险预测模型对EGV治疗后再出血具有较高预测价值,能为EGV治疗后再出血防治提供理论依据。