麻烦哪位医学英文高手给翻译个摘要啊？在线等！
Background:Contemporaryclinicalriskstratificationschemataforpredictingstrokeandthrom-...
Background: Contemporary clinical risk stratification schemata for predicting stroke and throm- boembolism (TE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are largely derived from risk factors identified from trial cohorts. Thus, many potential risk factors have not been included.
Methods: We refined the 2006 Birmingham/National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) stroke risk stratification schema into a risk factor-based approach by reclassifying and/or incorporating additional new risk factors where relevant. This schema was then compared with existing stroke risk stratification schema in a real-world cohort of patients with AF (n 5 1,084) from the Euro Heart Survey for AF.
Results: Risk categorization differed widely between the different schemes compared. Patients classified as high risk ranged from 10.2% with the Framingham schema to 75.7% with the Birmingham 2009 schema. The classic CHADS2 (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age . 75, Diabetes, prior Stroke/transient ischemic attack) schema categorized the largest proportion (61.9%) into the intermediate-risk strata, whereas the Birmingham 2009 schema classified 15.1% into this category. The Birmingham 2009 schema classified only 9.2% as low risk, whereas the Framingham scheme categorized 48.3% as low risk. Calculated C-statistics suggested modest predictive value of all schema for TE. The Birmingham 2009 schema fared marginally better (C-statistic, 0.606) than CHADS2. However, those classified as low risk by the Birmingham 2009 and NICE schema were truly low risk with no TE events recorded, whereas TE events occurred in 1.4% of low-risk CHADS2 subjects. When expressed as a scoring system, the Birmingham 2009 schema (CHA2DS2-VASc acronym) showed an increase in TE rate with increasing scores (P value for trend 5 .003).
Conclusion: Our novel, simple stroke risk stratification schema, based on a risk factor approach, provides some improvement in predictive value for TE over the CHADS2 schema, with low event rates in low-risk subjects and the classification of only a small proportion of subjects into the intermediate-risk category. This schema could improve our approach to stroke risk stratification in patients with AF. CHEST 2010; 137(2):263–272 展开
Methods: We refined the 2006 Birmingham/National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) stroke risk stratification schema into a risk factor-based approach by reclassifying and/or incorporating additional new risk factors where relevant. This schema was then compared with existing stroke risk stratification schema in a real-world cohort of patients with AF (n 5 1,084) from the Euro Heart Survey for AF.
Results: Risk categorization differed widely between the different schemes compared. Patients classified as high risk ranged from 10.2% with the Framingham schema to 75.7% with the Birmingham 2009 schema. The classic CHADS2 (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age . 75, Diabetes, prior Stroke/transient ischemic attack) schema categorized the largest proportion (61.9%) into the intermediate-risk strata, whereas the Birmingham 2009 schema classified 15.1% into this category. The Birmingham 2009 schema classified only 9.2% as low risk, whereas the Framingham scheme categorized 48.3% as low risk. Calculated C-statistics suggested modest predictive value of all schema for TE. The Birmingham 2009 schema fared marginally better (C-statistic, 0.606) than CHADS2. However, those classified as low risk by the Birmingham 2009 and NICE schema were truly low risk with no TE events recorded, whereas TE events occurred in 1.4% of low-risk CHADS2 subjects. When expressed as a scoring system, the Birmingham 2009 schema (CHA2DS2-VASc acronym) showed an increase in TE rate with increasing scores (P value for trend 5 .003).
Conclusion: Our novel, simple stroke risk stratification schema, based on a risk factor approach, provides some improvement in predictive value for TE over the CHADS2 schema, with low event rates in low-risk subjects and the classification of only a small proportion of subjects into the intermediate-risk category. This schema could improve our approach to stroke risk stratification in patients with AF. CHEST 2010; 137(2):263–272 展开
1个回答
展开全部
背景:当代临床危险分层预测中风和throm图式boembolism TE),房颤患者(AF)在很大程度上是来自试验鉴定出危险因素的群组研究中进行确证。因此,许多潜在的危险因素有未包括在内。
方法:我们雅致的2006年伯明翰/民族卓越临床健康研究所(好)中风危险分层成一个风险factor-based图式的态度,reclassifying和/或采纳更多的地方出现危险因素有关。当时这个模式与现有的中风的风险比在现实生活中分层图式队列的房颤病人(n 5 1,084)调查欧洲心脏心房颤动。
结果:风险分类的不同方案更广泛的在不同的比较。患者归入高危的范围从10.2% 75.7%与弗莱明翰模式,伯明翰2009年的方案。典型的CHADS2(充血性心力衰竭、高血压、年龄。75、糖尿病、事先卒中/短暂性脑缺血发作)模式分类最大比例(61.9%)到intermediate-risk地层,而伯明翰2009年模式分类15.1%加入这一行列。2009年的伯明翰模式分类只有9.2%低风险,而福雷明罕方案作为分类48.3%的低风险。C-statistics建议谦虚的预测价值计算的模式为技术主任。2009年的伯明翰稍微更好(C-statistic模式中,0.606 CHADS2)。然而,那些归入低风险增加了伯明翰2009年又好的模式确实是低风险的没有TE事件是否有记录,而特事情都发生在1.4%的科目。CHADS2风险当表示为一个得分系统,伯明翰2009年CHA2DS2-VASc首字母缩写词)模式(TE有所增加速度和分数(P值增加趋势5 0.003)。
结论:我们的新奇、简单中风的风险,基于分层图式的风险因素,提出了改进方法的预测价值为技术主任CHADS2模式,实现了低事件发生率为低风险的分类的主题和只有一小部分的学科intermediate-risk范畴。这个模式可以提高我们对中风患者的危险分层心房颤动。胸部2010年;263-272 137(2):
方法:我们雅致的2006年伯明翰/民族卓越临床健康研究所(好)中风危险分层成一个风险factor-based图式的态度,reclassifying和/或采纳更多的地方出现危险因素有关。当时这个模式与现有的中风的风险比在现实生活中分层图式队列的房颤病人(n 5 1,084)调查欧洲心脏心房颤动。
结果:风险分类的不同方案更广泛的在不同的比较。患者归入高危的范围从10.2% 75.7%与弗莱明翰模式,伯明翰2009年的方案。典型的CHADS2(充血性心力衰竭、高血压、年龄。75、糖尿病、事先卒中/短暂性脑缺血发作)模式分类最大比例(61.9%)到intermediate-risk地层,而伯明翰2009年模式分类15.1%加入这一行列。2009年的伯明翰模式分类只有9.2%低风险,而福雷明罕方案作为分类48.3%的低风险。C-statistics建议谦虚的预测价值计算的模式为技术主任。2009年的伯明翰稍微更好(C-statistic模式中,0.606 CHADS2)。然而,那些归入低风险增加了伯明翰2009年又好的模式确实是低风险的没有TE事件是否有记录,而特事情都发生在1.4%的科目。CHADS2风险当表示为一个得分系统,伯明翰2009年CHA2DS2-VASc首字母缩写词)模式(TE有所增加速度和分数(P值增加趋势5 0.003)。
结论:我们的新奇、简单中风的风险,基于分层图式的风险因素,提出了改进方法的预测价值为技术主任CHADS2模式,实现了低事件发生率为低风险的分类的主题和只有一小部分的学科intermediate-risk范畴。这个模式可以提高我们对中风患者的危险分层心房颤动。胸部2010年;263-272 137(2):
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
