切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志 ›› 2013, Vol. 02 ›› Issue (05) : 314 -317. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2013.05.010

所属专题: 文献

临床研究

APACHE Ⅳ评分和MELD评分对肝移植术后患者死亡分辨能力研究
胡月云1, 刘波2, 颜君3, 李铁花4, 马盈盈5, 胡爱玲1,()   
  1. 1. 510630 广州,中山大学附属第三医院岭南医院护理部
    2. 510630 广州,中山大学附属第三医院普外科
    3. 510630 广州,中山大学附属第三医院中山大学护理学院
    4. 中山大学附属第三医院内科重症监护病房
    5. 中山大学附属第三医院肝移植中心
  • 收稿日期:2013-07-14 出版日期:2013-10-10
  • 通信作者: 胡爱玲

Discriminability of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅳ and model for end-stage liver disease scores on mortality after liver transplantation

Yue-yun HU1, Bo LIU2, Jun YAN3, Tie-hua LI4, Ying-ying MA5, Ai-ling HU1,()   

  1. 1. School of Nursing, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China
  • Received:2013-07-14 Published:2013-10-10
  • Corresponding author: Ai-ling HU
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: HU Ai-ling, Email:
引用本文:

胡月云, 刘波, 颜君, 李铁花, 马盈盈, 胡爱玲. APACHE Ⅳ评分和MELD评分对肝移植术后患者死亡分辨能力研究[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2013, 02(05): 314-317.

Yue-yun HU, Bo LIU, Jun YAN, Tie-hua LI, Ying-ying MA, Ai-ling HU. Discriminability of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅳ and model for end-stage liver disease scores on mortality after liver transplantation[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2013, 02(05): 314-317.

目的

探讨急性生理学和慢性健康状况(APACHE)Ⅳ评分和终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分对肝移植术后患者住院期间死亡的分辨能力。

方法

回顾性研究2006年2月至2009年7月在中山大学附属第三医院肝移植中心接受同种异体原位肝移植的195例患者临床资料。其中男171例,女24例;年龄(48±11)岁。所有患者均签署知情同意书,符合医学伦理学规定。收集患者APACHE Ⅳ评分和MELD评分所需要的参数及住院期间死亡情况,分别计算患者APACHE Ⅳ评分和MELD评分。绘制两种评分对患者死亡分辨力的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,根据ROC曲线下面积(A)判断两种评分对患者住院期间死亡的分辨力,A值<0.5时无分辨力,0.5~0.7时分辨力较低,0.7~0.9时分辨力中等,>0.9时分辨力较高。两种评分的ROC曲线A值比较采用Wilcoxon秩和检验。

结果

本研究195例患者中住院期间病死率为13.8%(27/195);患者APACHE Ⅳ评分和MELD评分分别为(41±22)、(18±11)分,其中存活患者的APACHE Ⅳ评分和MELD评分分别为(36±16)、(17±10)分,死亡患者的APACHE Ⅳ评分和MELD评分分别为(75±25)、(26±13)分。APACHE Ⅳ评分对患者住院期间死亡分辨能力的ROC曲线A值为0.937,分辨力较高;MELD评分的ROC曲线A值为0.694,分辨力较低;APACHE Ⅳ评分的分辨力明显高于MELD评分(Z=3,493,P<0.05)。应用APACHE Ⅳ评分预测切点为56分,灵敏度0.85,特异度0.91,Youden指数0.76;MELD评分预测切点为20分,灵敏度0.70,特异度0.72,Youden指数0.43。

结论

与MELD评分比较,APACHE Ⅳ评分对肝移植术后患者住院期间死亡分辨能力更高,且分辨力的灵敏度和特异度更高。

Objective

To explore the discriminability of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) Ⅳ and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores on hospital mortality after liver transplantation (LT).

Methods

Clinical data of 195 patients [171 males, 24 females, mean age of (48±11) years old] who underwent orthotopic LT from February 2006 to July 2009 in Liver Transplantation Center, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sun University were studied retrospectively. The informed consents of all patients were obtained and the ethical committee approval was received. The required parameters for APACHE IV and MELD scores and hospital mortality were collected, and the APACHE IV and MELD scores were calculated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of discriminating patients′ mortality by two scores were drawn. The discriminability of two scores on hospital mortality were judged from the area under ROC curves (A). The discriminability was invalid when A value was <0.5, and was low when 0.5-0.7, moderate when 0.7-0.9, high when >0.9. The difference of A value between two scores were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Results

The hospital mortality of 195 patients in this study was 13.8% (27/195). The mean APACHE Ⅳ and MELD scores were (42±22), (18±11) respectively for all the patients. The mean APACHE Ⅳ and MELD scores were (36±16), (17±10) respectively for the survivals, while were (75±25), (26±13) respectively for the deaths. The A value of APACHE Ⅳ score in discriminating hospital mortality was 0.937 with a high discrimination. The A value of MELD score in discriminating hospital mortality was 0.694 with a low discrimination. The discriminability of APACHE Ⅳ score was higher than that of MELD score (Z=3,493, P<0.05). The predictive cutoff point of APACHE Ⅳ score was 56 with the sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.91 and Youden index 0.76. The predictive cutoff point of MELD score was 20 with the sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.72 and Youden index 0.43.

Conclusions

Compared with MELD score, the discriminability of APACHE Ⅳ score on hospital mortality after liver transplantation is higher, and the sensitivity and specificity are also higher.

图1 APACHE Ⅳ评分和MELD评分分辨肝移植术后患者死亡的ROC曲线
[1]
Ahmed A,Keeffe EB. Current indications and contraindications for liver transplantation. Clin Liver Dis, 2007, 11(2): 227-247.
[2]
沈中阳,陈新国.临床肝移植. 2版.北京:科学出版社, 2010: 2-4.
[3]
Arabi Y,Abbasi A,Goraj R, et al. External validation of a modified model of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) Ⅱ for orthotopic liver transplant patients. Crit Care, 2002, 6(3): 245-250.
[4]
Volk ML,Hernandez JC,Lok AS, et al. Modified Charlson comorbidity index for predicting survival after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl, 2007, 13(11): 1515-1520.
[5]
Knaus WA,Zimmerman JE,Wagner DP, et al. APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med, 1981, 9(8): 591-597.
[6]
Knaus WA,Draper EA,Wagner DP, et al. APACHE Ⅱ: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med, 1985, 13(10):818-829.
[7]
Knaus WA,Wagner DP,Draper EA, et al. The APACHE Ⅲ prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest, 1991, 100(6): 1619-1636.
[8]
Zimmerman JE,Kramer AA,McNair DS, et al. Intensive care unit length of stay: Benchmarking based on Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) Ⅳ. Crit Care Med, 2006, 34(10): 2517-2529.
[9]
Gallegos-Orozco JF,Vargas HE. Liver transplantation: from Child to MELD. Med Clin North Am, 2009, 93(4): 931-950.
[10]
Suzuki H,Bartlett AS,Muiesan P, et al. High model for end-stage liver disease score as a predictor of survival during long-term follow-up after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc, 2012, 44(2): 384-388.
[11]
Batista TP,Sabat BD,Melo PS, et al. Employment of MELD score for the prediction of survival after liver transplantation. Rev Col Bras Cir, 2012, 39(2): 105-111.
[12]
赵耐清.临床医学研究设计和数据分析.上海:复旦大学出版社, 2005: 241-252.
[13]
Zimmerman JE,Kramer AA,McNair DS, et al. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) Ⅳ: hospital mortality assessment for today′s critically ill patients. Crit Care Med, 2006, 34(5): 1297-1310.
[14]
Knaus WA. APACHE 1978-2001: the development of a quality assurance system based on prognosis: milestones and personal reflections. Arch Surg, 2002, 137(1): 37-41.
[15]
Pascual E,Gomez-Arnau J,Pensado A, et al. Incidence and risk factors of early acute renal failure in liver transplant patients. Transplant Proc, 1993, 25(2): 1837.
[16]
Dellon ES,Galanko JA,Medapalli RK, et al. Impact of dialysis and older age on survival after liver transplantation. Am J Transplant, 2006, 6(9): 2183-2190.
[17]
Basile-Filho A,Nicolini EA,Auxiliadora-Martins M, et al. Comparison of acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ death risk, Child-Pugh, Charlson, and model for end-stage liver disease indexes to predict early mortality after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc, 2011, 43(5): 1660-1664.
[18]
Yoo HY,Thuluvath PJ. Short-term postliver transplant survival after the introduction of MELD scores for organ allocation in the United States. Liver Int, 2005, 25(3): 536-541.
[1] 李坤河, 寇萌佳, 邝立挺. 肝移植术后二次气管插管的危险因素及预测模型的建立[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 366-371.
[2] 中华医学会器官移植学分会, 中国医师协会器官移植医师分会, 上海医药行业协会. 中国肝、肾移植受者霉酚酸类药物应用专家共识(2023版)[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 257-272.
[3] 陆闻青, 陈昕怡, 任雪飞. 遗传代谢病儿童肝移植受者术后生活质量调查研究[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 287-292.
[4] 范铁艳, 李君, 陈虹. 肝移植术后新发戊型病毒性肝炎的诊治经验[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 293-296.
[5] 陈朔, 陈峰, 程飞, 项捷. 糖原累积病Ⅰ型并发胰腺炎肝移植术后胰腺梗死一例[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 300-302.
[6] 汤鹏昊, 张武. 肠道微生态与肝移植围手术期并发症相关研究进展[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 303-307.
[7] 祝丽娜, 杨子祯, 张迪, 张勇, 蔡金贞, 王建红. 超声造影在肝移植术后肝动脉并发症中的应用价值[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 240-245.
[8] 中国器官移植发展基金会器官移植受者健康管理专家委员会, 中国医师协会器官移植医师分会, 中华医学会器官移植学分会, 国家肝脏移植质控中心. 肝移植受者雷帕霉素靶蛋白抑制剂临床应用中国专家共识(2023版)[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 193-204.
[9] 严庆, 刘颖, 邓斐文, 陈焕伟. 微血管侵犯对肝癌肝移植患者生存预后的影响[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 624-629.
[10] 廖梅, 张红君, 金洁玚, 吕艳, 任杰. 床旁超声造影对肝移植术后早期肝动脉血栓的诊断价值[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 630-634.
[11] 李秉林, 吕少诚, 潘飞, 姜涛, 樊华, 寇建涛, 贺强, 郎韧. 供肝灌注液病原菌与肝移植术后早期感染的相关性分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 656-660.
[12] 吕垒, 冯啸, 何凯明, 曾凯宁, 杨卿, 吕海金, 易慧敏, 易述红, 杨扬, 傅斌生. 改良金氏评分在儿童肝豆状核变性急性肝衰竭肝移植手术时机评估中价值并文献复习[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 661-668.
[13] 王孟龙. 肿瘤生物学特征在肝癌肝移植治疗中的意义[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(05): 490-494.
[14] 王晓东, 汪恺, 葛昭, 丁忠祥, 徐骁. 计算机视觉技术在肝癌肝移植疗效提升中的研究进展[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(04): 361-366.
[15] 刘平娟, 罗科城, 吴家茵, 廖康, 胡雯雯, 陈怡丽. 神经内科重症监护室患者肠道耐碳青霉烯类肠杆菌目细菌主动筛查研究[J]. 中华临床实验室管理电子杂志, 2023, 11(04): 235-240.
阅读次数
全文


摘要