4.7 Article

Usefulness of the CHAMPS score for risk stratification in lower gastrointestinal bleeding

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11666-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  2. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
  3. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple prediction score called the CHAMPS score has been developed to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This study aims to evaluate the usefulness of the CHAMPS score in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). The CHAMPS score showed good performance, with a higher area under the curve (AUC) compared to existing scores, in predicting in-hospital mortality in LGIB patients.
We have recently developed a simple prediction score, the CHAMPS score, to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In this study, the primary outcome of this study was the usefulness of the CHAMPS score for predicting in-hospital mortality with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). Consecutive adult patients who were hospitalized with LGIB at two tertiary academic medical centers from 2015 to 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. The performance for predicting outcomes with CHAMPS score was assessed by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and compared with four existing scores. In 387 patients enrolled in this study, 39 (10.1%) of whom died during the hospitalization. The CHAMPS score showed good performance in predicting in-hospital mortality in LGIB patients with an AUC (95% confidence interval) of 0.80 (0.73-0.87), which was significantly higher in comparison to the existing scores. The risk of in-hospital mortality as predicted by the CHAMPS score was shown: low risk (score <= 1), 1.8%; intermediate risk (score 2 or 3), 15.8%; and high risk (score >= 4), 37.1%. The CHAMPS score is useful for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with LGIB.

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

4.7
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