摘要
目的两种卒中风险评估系统CHADS2和CHA2DS2-VASc对非瓣膜性房颤人群的卒中风险评估。方法对420例非瓣膜性房颤人群,用CHADS2和CHA2DS2-VASc评估系统进行卒中风险评估,比较两种评估系统平均得分以及卒中危险分层的差异。结果 CHADS2平均得分为(1.39±1.39)分,CHA2DS2-VASc平均得分为(2.41±1.93)分,后者明显高于前者(P<0.05)。CHADS2卒中危险分层低危组为34.5%(145/420),中危组为28.8%(121/420),高危组为36.7%(154/420);CHA2DS2-VASc卒中危险分层低危组为16.2%(68/420),中危组为23.3%(98/420),高危组为60.5%(254/420),CHA2DS2-VASc评分低危组明显低于CHADS2,高危组比例要明显高于CHADS2(P<0.05)。结论CHA2DS2-VASc评估得分高于CHADS2,CHA2DS2-VASc评估的抗凝适应人群也更为广泛。
Objective To compare the results of stroke risk assessment system in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation u sing CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc. Methods A total of 420 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation were evaluated using CHADS2 and CHA2 DS2-VASc, they were divided into three groups according scores： low risk group（scores 0）, intermediate risk group（scores 1）, high risk group（scores≥2）. Compare the average scores and the proportions of three groups of two stroke risk assessment system. Results The average score of CHA2DS2-VASc was significantly higher than that＇s of CHADS2 （2.41±1.93 vs. 1.39±1. 39,P〈0.05）. According to scores of CHADS2,the proportions of low risk groups were 34.5% （145/420）,intermediate risk group were 28.8% （121/420）, high risk group were 36. 7% （154/420）. According to scores of CHA2 DS2 VASc, the proportions of low risk group were 16.2%（68/420）,intermediate risk group were 23.3% （98/420）,high risk group were 60.5% （254/ 420）. CHA2 DS2-VASc compared with CHADS2, the proportion of low-risk group significantly lower than the latter, the proportion of high-risk groups significantly higher than the latter（P〈0.05）. Conclusion The scores of CHA2 DS2-VASc is significantly high- er than that＇s of CHADS2 in patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation,there are more patients needs anticoagulation using stroke risk assessment system CHA2 DS2-VASc.
出处
《重庆医学》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第32期3894-3895,共2页
Chongqing medicine
关键词
心房颤动
卒中
风险评估
atrial fibrillation
stroke
risk stratification
