4.6 Article

DIC Score in Pregnant Women - A Population Based Modification of the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis Score

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093240

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The objectives of this study were: 1) To determine the component needed to generate a validated DIC score during pregnancy. 2) To validate such scoring system in the identification of patients with clinical diagnosis of DIC. Material and Methods: This is a population based retrospective study, including all women who gave birth at the 'Soroka University Medical Center' during the study period, and have had blood coagulation tests including complete blood cell count, prothrombin time (PT)(seconds), partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), fibrinogen, and D-dimers. Nomograms for pregnancy were established, and DIC score was constructed based on ROC curve analyses. Results: 1) maternal plasma fibrinogen concentrations increased during pregnancy; 2) maternal platelet count decreased gradually during gestation; 3) the PT and PTT values did not change with advancing gestation; 4) PT difference had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.96 (p<0.001), and a PT difference >= 1.55 had an 87% sensitivity and 90% specificity for the diagnosis of DIC; 5) the platelet count had an AUC of 0.87 (p<0.001), an 86% sensitivity and 71% specificity for the diagnosis of DIC; 6) fibrinogen concentrations had an AUC of 0.95 (p<0.001) and a cutoff point <= 3.9 g/L had a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 92% for the development of DIC; and 7) The pregnancy adjusted DIC score had an AUC of 0.975 (p<0.001) and at a cutoff point of >= 26 had a sensitivity of 88%, a specificity of 96%, a LR(+) of 22 and a LR(-) of 0.125 for the diagnosis of DIC. Conclusion: We could establish a sensitive and specific pregnancy adjusted DIC score. The positive likelihood ratio of this score suggests that a patient with a score of >26 has a high probability to have DIC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据