4.4 Article

Predicting 6-week mortality after acute variceal bleeding: role of classification and regression tree analysis

期刊

ANNALS OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 308-315

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA
DOI: 10.1016/S1665-2681(19)31743-0

关键词

Variceal bleeding; Portal hypertension; Cirrhosis; Prognostic scores; Classification And Regression Tree (CART) analysis; Child-Pugh; MELD

资金

  1. FUNSALUD, A.C., FUNDACION AMPARO
  2. FUNDHEPA, A.C., Mexico
  3. Institut de Recerca Vall d'Hebron/La Caixa
  4. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Available prognostic scores for mortality after acute variceal bleeding are mainly based on logistic regression analysis but may have some limitations that can restrict their clinical value. Aims. To assess the efficacy of a novel prognostic approach based on Classification and Regression Tree -CART- analysis to common easy-to-use models (MELD and Child-Pugh) for predicting 6-week mortality in patients with variceal bleeding. Methods. Sixty consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute variceal bleeding. CART analysis, MELD and Child-Pugh scores were performed to assess 6-week mortality. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to evaluate the predictive performance of the models. Results. Six-week rebleeding and mortality were 30% and 22%, respectively. Child-Pugh and MELD scores were clinically relevant for predicting 6 weeks mortality. CART analysis provided a simple algorithm based on just three bedside-available variables (albumin, bilirubin and in-hospital rebleeding), allowing accurate discrimination of two distinct prognostic subgroups with 3% and 80% mortality rates. All MELD, Child-Pugh and CART models showed excellent and comparable predictive accuracy, with areas under the ROC curves (AUROC) of 0.88, 0.84 and 0.91, respectively. Conclusions. A simple CART algorithm combining albumin, bilirubin and in-hospital rebleeding allows an accurate predictive assessment of 6-week mortality after acute variceal bleeding.

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

4.4
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