切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2017, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (02) : 162 -168. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2017.02.008

所属专题: 专题评论 经典病例 经典病例 文献

论著

新生儿危重病例评分法的临床应用
何柳1, 夏斌2,(), 虎春元1, 李淑萍1, 周娟1, 严琼珍1   
  1. 1. 636000 四川省巴中市中心医院新生儿科
    2. 610041 成都,四川大学华西第二医院新生儿科、出生缺陷与相关妇儿疾病教育部重点实验室
  • 收稿日期:2016-12-03 修回日期:2017-03-14 出版日期:2017-04-01
  • 通信作者: 夏斌

Clinical application of neonatal critical illness score

Liu He1, Bin Xia2,(), Chunyuan Hu1, Shuping Li1, Juan Zhou1, Qiongzhen Yan1   

  1. 1. Department of Neonatology, Bazhong Central Hospital of Sichuan Province, Bazhong 636000, Sichuan Province, China
    2. Department of Neonatology, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China
  • Received:2016-12-03 Revised:2017-03-14 Published:2017-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Bin Xia
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Xia Bin, Email:
引用本文:

何柳, 夏斌, 虎春元, 李淑萍, 周娟, 严琼珍. 新生儿危重病例评分法的临床应用[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2017, 13(02): 162-168.

Liu He, Bin Xia, Chunyuan Hu, Shuping Li, Juan Zhou, Qiongzhen Yan. Clinical application of neonatal critical illness score[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2017, 13(02): 162-168.

目的

探讨《新生儿危重病例评分法(NCIS)(草案)》对临床危重新生儿救治的指导意义。

方法

选取2012年5月至2015年5月,于巴中市中心医院新生儿科收治的满足《NCIS(草案)》中,新生儿危重病例诊断标准的581例危重新生儿为研究对象。采用回顾性分析方法,收集这581例危重新生儿的临床资料,对单项指标符合《NCIS(草案)》新生儿危重病例诊断标准,以及NCIS评分≤90分的危重新生儿的NCIS检查项目扣分情况,进行统计学分析。根据581例危重新生儿的预后情况,将其分为预后良好组(n=445)及预后不良组(n=136)。对预后良好组及预后不良组危重新生儿的临床资料进行统计学分析。结合已有研究结果及临床经验,选取相应因素进行危重新生儿预后独立影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析。

结果

①本研究581危重新生儿中,男性多于女性(370∶211);发病日龄以出生1 d内为主(72.3%,420/581);剖宫产分娩患儿多于经阴道分娩患儿(337∶244);54.7%(318/581)患儿合并至少一项高危因素;新生儿危重疾病构成中,前3位依次为新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征(NRDS)(32.4%,188/581),新生儿肺炎(22.7%,132/581),新生儿窒息(15.8%,92/581)。②这581危重新生儿中,因单项指标符合《NCIS(草案)》新生儿危重病例诊断标准,而被纳入危重新生儿者,共计455例(78.3%)。其中,以需进行气管插管辅助机械通气治疗或反复呼吸暂停对刺激无反应者、有换血指征的高胆红素血症者、低血糖者最为常见,所占比例分别为59.3%(270/455)、16.7%(76/455)及10.1%(46/455)。这581危重新生儿中,因NCIS评分≤90分符合《NCIS(草案)》新生儿危重病例诊断标准,而被纳入危重新生儿者,共计558例(96.0%)。其NCIS检查项目中,扣分最多的项目前3位依次为pH值≤7.25或≥7.50(31.5%,176/558),呼吸频率≤25次/min或≥60次/min(18.1%,101/558),动脉血氧分压(PaO2)≤60 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)(16.8%,94/558)。③预后良好组与预后不良组患儿的性别、发病日龄、胎龄构成比等比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。相对于预后不良组患儿,预后良好组患儿的出生体重更高,住院时间更长,剖宫产分娩率更高,极危重患儿(NCIS评分<70分)比例更低,并且差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。④多因素非条件logistic回归分析的结果显示,出生体重、住院时间及NCIS评分为危重新生儿预后的独立影响因素(OR=2.528,95%CI:1.178~5.426,P=0.017;OR=76.736,95%CI:27.279~215.858,P<0.001;OR=106.697,95%CI:43.952~259.019,P<0.001)。

结论

《NCIS(草案)》中的单项指标及NCIS检查项目扣分情况,可准确、有效地反映新生儿病变状态。应用此方法可指导对危重新生儿的救治及预后判断,有助于建立基层医院危重新生儿转诊机制,开设急救通道,从而提高危重新生儿抢救成功率,降低新生儿死亡率。

Objective

To investigate the significance of neonatal critical illness score (NCIS)(Draft) for treating critically ill neonates.

Methods

A total of 581 cases of critically ill neonates who were treated in Department of Neonatology, Bazhong Central Hospital of Sichuan Province from May 2012 to May 2015 were selected as research subjects. All the 581 cases met the neonatal critical cases diagnostic criteria in NCIS (Draft) and their clinical data were collected by retrospective method. The single index that matched the index of critically ill neonates of NCIS (Draft) and the score points of inspection items of NCIS for critically ill neonates whose NCIS score ≤90 points were statistically analyzed. According to the prognosis of the 581 cases, they were enrolled into good prognosis group (n=445), and poor prognosis group (n=136). The clinical data between two groups were statistically analyzed. Combined with the results of existing researches and clinical practice, some factors were introduced into multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis to analyzed the prognostic factors of critically ill neonates.

Results

①Among the 581 cases of critically ill neonates, the number of male neonates was higher than female neonates (370∶211). Most neonates were born in 1 d (420 cases, 72.3%), and there were more neonates via cesarean section than those via vaginal delivery (337∶244). And 54.7% (318/581) neonates had at least one high risk factor. The first three diseases of critically ill neonates were neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS) (32.4%, 188/581), neonatal pneumonia (22.7%, 132/581), and neonatal asphyxia (15.8%, 92/581). ②Among the 581 cases of critically ill neonates, 455 cases (78.3%) were diagnosed as neonatal critical cases by single index of NCIS (Draft), which were mostly presented as requiring tracheal intubation or repeating apnea without response to stimulation (59.3%, 270/455), severe hyper bilirubinemia (16.7%, 76/455), and hypoglycemia (10.1%, 46/455). Among the 581 cases of critically ill neonates, 585 cases (96.0%) were diagnosed as neonatal critical cases by NCIS score ≤ 90 points. And the first three inspection items with most easily deducted were pH value ≤7.25 or ≥7.50 (31.5%, 176/558), respiratory rate ≤ 25 time/min or ≥ 60 time/min (18.1%, 101/558), and partial pressure of oxygen in artery (PaO2) ≤ 60 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) (16.8%, 94/558). ③There were no statistical differences between good prognosis group and poor prognosis group in the gender ratio, onset age, and gestational age (P>0.05). Compared with poor prognosis group, the birth weight in good prognosis group was heavier, the hospitalization time was longer, cesarean delivery rate was higher, but the proportion of very critical newborns (NCIS score< 70 points) in good prognosis group was lower, and all the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). ④The results of multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis indicated that birth weight, hospitalization time and NCIS score were independent factors affecting the prognosis of critically ill newborns (OR=2.528, 95%CI: 1.178-5.426, P=0.017; OR=76.736, 95%CI: 27.279-215.858, P<0.001; OR=106.697, 95%CI: 43.952-259.019, P<0.001).

Conclusions

The single index and NCIS score in NCIS (Draft) can reflect the state of neonatal lesions accurately and effectively. So this method can guide the treatment and prognosis assessment of critically ill newborns and is beneficial for building referral mechanism in primary hospital and emergency access for critical neonates. Thus it can improve the rate of successful rescue and reduce the mortality rate of critically ill neonates.

表1 581例危重新生儿基本临床资料分析结果[例数(%)]
表2 455例单项指标符合《NCIS(草案)》新生儿危重病例诊断标准的危重新生儿的单项指标分析结果[例数(%)]
表3 558例NCIS评分≤90分符合《NCIS(草案)》新生儿危重病例诊断标准的危重新重儿的NCIS检查项目扣分情况[例数(%)]
表4 预后良好组与预后不良组危重新生儿的临床资料比较
表5 危重新生儿预后影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析的变量含义及其赋值情况
表6 危重新生儿预后影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析结果
[1]
中华医学会急诊学分会儿科学组, 中华医学会儿科学分会急诊学组, 中华医学会儿科学分会新生儿学组. 新生儿危重病例评分法(草案)[J]. 中华儿科杂志, 2001, 39(1): 42-43.
[2]
UNICEF. Levels and trends in child mortality 2014: report 2014. Estimates developed by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation[M]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014: 1-30.
[3]
刘红, 黄蕾, 毛宝宏, 等. 甘肃省2004-2011年新生儿死亡监测数据分析[J]. 中国新生儿科杂志, 2016, 31(4): 259-262.
[4]
付汉东, 陆敏, 杨树杰, 等. 2007-2010年孝感地区新生儿死亡原因调查分析[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志, 2012, 14(3): 181-183.
[5]
姜岚. 537例住院新生儿死亡动态统计分析[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2013, 28(17): 2761-2763.
[6]
童笑梅. 高危儿系统管理规范要略[J]. 中国新生儿科杂志, 2013, 28(3): 145-148.
[7]
Phibbs CS, Baker LC, Caughey AB, et al. Level and volume of neonatal intensive care and mortality in very-low-birth-weight infants[J]. N Engl J Med, 2007, 356(21): 2165-2175.
[8]
赖剑蒲, 陈克正, 吕回. 新生儿危重病例评分在NICU的应用分析[J]. 中国实用儿科杂志, 2003, 18(11): 658-660.
[9]
向二英, 田鹏, 余新华. 新生儿危重病例评分法在新生儿科的临床应用[J]. 湖北民族学院学报(医学版), 2013, 30(1): 52-53.
[10]
LuKonga E, Michelo C. Factors associated with neonatal mortality in the general population: evidence from the 2007 Zambia Demographic and Health Survey (ZDHS); a cross sectional study[J]. Pan Afr Med J, 2015, 20: 64.
[11]
柳国胜, 聂川, 谌崇峰. 新生儿呼吸生理特点[J]. 中国新生儿科杂志, 2013, 28(5): 289-291.
[12]
郭丽侠, 杨宇艳. 母婴同室新生儿黄疸的早期监测与干预措施[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2014, 29(15): 2363-2364.
[13]
郑明琼, 王俊怡. 早产儿转运安全性分析[J]. 实用临床医学, 2014, 15(1): 86-88.
[14]
吴健容, 谷强. 新生儿危重病例评分和第三代小儿死亡危险评分预测危重新生儿死亡风险比较[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2014, 22(4): 368-370.
[15]
邱如新, 杨莉. 新生儿危重病例评分与美国新生儿急性生理学评分围产期补充Ⅱ预测危重新生儿死亡风险比较[J]. 中国实用儿科杂志, 2012, 27(1): 42-44.
[16]
徐文慧, 刘娜娜, 柳涛, 等. 改良aEEG、NCIS、SNAPPE-Ⅱ评分对高危儿脑损伤早期诊断价值比较[J]. 南昌大学学报(医学版), 2015, 55(2): 25-31.
[17]
王战胜, 刘雨露, 施雪颖, 等. 不同评分系统预测危重新生儿死亡风险的应用[J]. 中国新生儿科杂志, 2016, 31(3): 189-192.
[1] 张思平, 刘伟, 马鹏程. 全膝关节置换术后下肢轻度内翻对线对疗效的影响[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 808-817.
[2] 李越洲, 张孔玺, 李小红, 商中华. 基于生物信息学分析胃癌中PUM的预后意义[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 426-432.
[3] 张俊, 罗再, 段茗玉, 裘正军, 黄陈. 胃癌预后预测模型的研究进展[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 456-461.
[4] 马伟强, 马斌林, 吴中语, 张莹. microRNA在三阴性乳腺癌进展中发挥的作用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 111-114.
[5] 杨倩, 李翠芳, 张婉秋. 原发性肝癌自发性破裂出血急诊TACE术后的近远期预后及影响因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 33-36.
[6] 栗艳松, 冯会敏, 刘明超, 刘泽鹏, 姜秋霞. STIP1在三阴性乳腺癌组织中的表达及临床意义研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 52-56.
[7] 江振剑, 蒋明, 黄大莉. TK1、Ki67蛋白在分化型甲状腺癌组织中的表达及预后价值研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 623-626.
[8] 晏晴艳, 雍晓梅, 罗洪, 杜敏. 成都地区老年转移性乳腺癌的预后及生存因素研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 636-638.
[9] 鲁鑫, 许佳怡, 刘洋, 杨琴, 鞠雯雯, 徐缨龙. 早期LC术与PTCD续贯LC术治疗急性胆囊炎对患者肝功能及预后的影响比较[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 648-650.
[10] 姜明, 罗锐, 龙成超. 闭孔疝的诊断与治疗:10年73例患者诊疗经验总结[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 706-710.
[11] 钟广俊, 刘春华, 朱万森, 徐晓雷, 王兆军. MRI联合不同扫描序列在胃癌术前分期诊断及化疗效果和预后的评估[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 378-382.
[12] 胡宝茹, 尚乃舰, 高迪. 中晚期肝细胞癌的DCE-MRI及DWI表现与免疫治疗预后的相关性分析[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 399-403.
[13] 李永胜, 孙家和, 郭书伟, 卢义康, 刘洪洲. 高龄结直肠癌患者根治术后短期并发症及其影响因素[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 962-967.
[14] 王军, 刘鲲鹏, 姚兰, 张华, 魏越, 索利斌, 陈骏, 苗成利, 罗成华. 腹膜后肿瘤切除术中大量输血患者的麻醉管理特点与分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 844-849.
[15] 索利斌, 刘鲲鹏, 姚兰, 张华, 魏越, 王军, 陈骏, 苗成利, 罗成华. 原发性腹膜后副神经节瘤切除术麻醉管理的特点和分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 771-776.
阅读次数
全文


摘要