4.6 Article

Vitamin D status and 3-month Glasgow Outcome Scale scores in patients in neurocritical care: prospective analysis of 497 patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 128, 期 6, 页码 1635-1641

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2017.2.JNS163037

关键词

Glasgow Outcome Scale; hypovitaminosis; multivariable analysis; prospective study; risk factors; vitamin D; traumatic brain injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with a variety of negative outcomes in critically ill patients, but little focused study on the effects of hypovitaminosis D has been performed in the neurocritical care population. In this study, the authors examined the effect of vitamin D deficiency on 3-month outcomes after discharge from a neurocritical care unit (NCCU). METHODS The authors prospectively analyzed 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in patients admitted to the NCCU of a quaternary care center over a 6-month period. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores were used to evaluate their 3-month outcome, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the effects of vitamin D deficiency. RESULTS Four hundred ninety-seven patients met the inclusion criteria. In the binomial logistic regression model, patients without vitamin D deficiency (> 20 ng/dl) were significantly more likely to have a 3-month GOS score of 4 or 5 than those who were vitamin D deficient (OR 1.768 [95% CI 1.095-2.852]). Patients with a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) (OR 0.925 [95% CI 0.910-0.940]) and those admitted for stroke (OR 0.409 [95% CI 0.209-0.803]) or those with an other diagnosis (OR 0.409 [95% CI 0.217-0.772]) were significantly more likely to have a 3-month GOS score of 3 or less. CONCLUSIONS Vitamin D deficiency is associated with worse 3-month postdischarge GOS scores in patients admitted to an NCCU. Additional study is needed to determine the role of vitamin D supplementation in the NCCU population.

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