海南医学
海南醫學
해남의학
HAINAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
2014年
11期
1584-1586
,共3页
危重创伤%改良早期预警评分%临床效果
危重創傷%改良早期預警評分%臨床效果
위중창상%개량조기예경평분%림상효과
Critical trauma%Improved early warning score%Clinical effect
目的：探讨危重创伤患者进行改良早期预警评分(MEWS)的临床应用价值，为提高危重创伤患者临床治疗效果提供可靠依据。方法选取我院2012年2月至2013年8月前来就诊的200例危重创伤患者，依据患者年龄将其分为≤14岁组、(15~25)岁组、(26~45)岁组、(46~60)岁组、61≥岁组五个组，应用MEWS评分标准对患者进行准确评分，以各组患者出院或死亡为观察终点，记录各组患者MESW评分情况以及不同MESW评分患者救治结果，并进行统计学分析。结果≤14岁组与≥61岁组MEWS≥9分率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；≤14岁组与15~25岁、26~45岁、46~60岁组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)；≥61岁组与15~25岁、26~45岁、46~60岁组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。NEWS评分0~4分痊愈率最高，与5~8分及≥9分组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论应用改良早期预警评分系统有利于临床医师对不同年龄段的危重创伤患者依据MEWS评分采取不同的救治措施，可以更合理利用医疗资源，改善患者预后，降低死亡率，值得临床推广应用。
目的：探討危重創傷患者進行改良早期預警評分(MEWS)的臨床應用價值，為提高危重創傷患者臨床治療效果提供可靠依據。方法選取我院2012年2月至2013年8月前來就診的200例危重創傷患者，依據患者年齡將其分為≤14歲組、(15~25)歲組、(26~45)歲組、(46~60)歲組、61≥歲組五箇組，應用MEWS評分標準對患者進行準確評分，以各組患者齣院或死亡為觀察終點，記錄各組患者MESW評分情況以及不同MESW評分患者救治結果，併進行統計學分析。結果≤14歲組與≥61歲組MEWS≥9分率比較差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)；≤14歲組與15~25歲、26~45歲、46~60歲組比較差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)；≥61歲組與15~25歲、26~45歲、46~60歲組比較差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)。NEWS評分0~4分痊愈率最高，與5~8分及≥9分組比較差異均有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論應用改良早期預警評分繫統有利于臨床醫師對不同年齡段的危重創傷患者依據MEWS評分採取不同的救治措施，可以更閤理利用醫療資源，改善患者預後，降低死亡率，值得臨床推廣應用。
목적：탐토위중창상환자진행개량조기예경평분(MEWS)적림상응용개치，위제고위중창상환자림상치료효과제공가고의거。방법선취아원2012년2월지2013년8월전래취진적200례위중창상환자，의거환자년령장기분위≤14세조、(15~25)세조、(26~45)세조、(46~60)세조、61≥세조오개조，응용MEWS평분표준대환자진행준학평분，이각조환자출원혹사망위관찰종점，기록각조환자MESW평분정황이급불동MESW평분환자구치결과，병진행통계학분석。결과≤14세조여≥61세조MEWS≥9분솔비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)；≤14세조여15~25세、26~45세、46~60세조비교차이균유통계학의의(P<0.05)；≥61세조여15~25세、26~45세、46~60세조비교차이균유통계학의의(P<0.05)。NEWS평분0~4분전유솔최고，여5~8분급≥9분조비교차이균유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론응용개량조기예경평분계통유리우림상의사대불동년령단적위중창상환자의거MEWS평분채취불동적구치조시，가이경합리이용의료자원，개선환자예후，강저사망솔，치득림상추엄응용。
Objective To investigate the clinical value of improved early warning score (MEWS) in critically ill trauma patients and provide a reliable basis for improving clinical outcomes for those patients. Methods 200 criti-cally ill trauma patients were enrolled in this study, seen in our hospital from February 2012 to August 2013. Accord-ing to their age, those patients were divided into five age groups:0~14, 15~25, 26~45, 46~60, 61 and above. Value the patients with MEWS scoring criteria and end the evaluation when they discharged from hospital or death. Compare the MESW record score of each group as well as different MESW rated treatment outcomes with statistics. Result There is no significant difference between age group 0~14 and age group 61 and above at MEWS≥9 fraction (χ2=0.00, P>0.05). Age group 0~14 is significantly different from age group 15~25, 26~45 and 46~60 (theχ2 is 4.37, 4.43 and 4.49 respectively, P <0.05). Age group 61 and above is significantly different from age group 15~25, 26~45, and 46~60 (theχ2 is 5.91, 6.06 and 5.96, respectively, P<0.05). Patients with NEWS score 0~4 had highest cure rate, which is statis-tically significant different from groups with NEWS score 5~8 or≥9 (theχ2 is 10.91 and 37.08, respectively, P<0.05). Conclusion The application of improved early warning scoring system is meaningful for clinicians to chose suitable treatments for critically ill trauma patients at different age according to their MEWS scores, which would improve pa-tient outcomes, reduce mortality, increase the using of medical resources, and deserve further clinical application.
