Zeng Qingling, Wang Qingmei, Tao Liju, et al. Establishment of nomogram predicting model for the death risk of extremely severe burn patients and the predictive value[J]. Chin j Burns, 2020, 36(9): 845-852. Doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20190620-00280
Citation: Zeng Qingling, Wang Qingmei, Tao Liju, et al. Establishment of nomogram predicting model for the death risk of extremely severe burn patients and the predictive value[J]. Chin j Burns, 2020, 36(9): 845-852. Doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20190620-00280

Establishment of nomogram predicting model for the death risk of extremely severe burn patients and the predictive value

doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20190620-00280
  • Received Date: 2019-06-20
    Available Online: 2021-10-28
  • Publish Date: 2020-09-20
  • Objective To explore the death risk factors of extremely severe burn patients, establish a death risk nomogram predicting model, and investigate the predictive value for death risk of extremely severe burn patients. Methods The medical records of 231 extremely severe burn patients (190 males and 41 females, aged 18-60 years) who were admitted to the Institute of Burn Research of the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University from January 2010 to October 2018 and met the inclusion criteria were analyzed retrospectively. According to the final outcome, the patients were divided into survival group of 173 patients and death group of 58 patients. The sex, age, severity of inhalation injury, total burn area, full-thickness burn area, burn index, rehydration coefficient and urine volume coefficient of the first and second 24 h after injury, the first base excess, shock index, and hematocrit (HCT) after admission, whether to have pre-hospital fluid infusion, use of ventilator, and use of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), and abbreviated burn severity index (ABSI ) and Baux score on admission of patients in the two groups were recorded or calculated. According to the use of ventilator, the patients were divided into with ventilator group of 131 patients and without ventilator group of 100 patients, and the death, total burn surface area, burn index, incidence and severity of inhalation injury were recorded. According to the use of CRRT, the patients were divided into with CRRT group of 59 patients and without CRRT group of 172 patients, and the death, total burn surface area, and burn index were recorded. Data were statistically analyzed with t test, chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney U test to screen the death related factors of patients. The indexes with statistically significant differences between survival group and death group were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis to screen the independent death risk factors of patients, and the death risk nomogram predicting model was constructed based on the results.The Bootstrap method was used to validate the death risk nomogram predicting model internally. The predictive value of the nomogram model for predicting death risk of patients was detected by drawing calibration graph and calculating concordance index, and the death risk scores of 231 patients were acquired according to the death risk nomogram model. The receiver′s operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn, and the optimal threshold and the sensitivity and specificity of optimal threshold in the ROC curve and the area under the curve were calculated. Results (1) There were statistically significant differences in burn index, ABSI on admission, severity of inhalation injury, total burn area, full-thickness burn area, rehydration coefficient at the first 24 h after injury, use of ventilator, use of CRRT, and Baux score on admission of patients between the two groups (Z=-7.696, -7.031, χ2=18.304, 63.065, 23.300, 13.073, 34.240, 59.586, t=-7.536, P<0.01). (2) There were statistically significant differences in death, incidence and severity of inhalation injury, total burn area, and burn index of patients between with ventilator group and without ventilator group (χ2=34.240, 17.394, 25.479, Z=-6.557, -7.049, P<0.01). (3) There were statistically significant differences in death, total burn area, and burn index of patients between with CRRT group and without CRRT group (χ2=62.982, Z= -47.421, -6.678, P<0.01). (4) The use of ventilator, use of CRRT, and burn index were independent risk factors for the death of extremely severe burn patients (odds ratio=3.277, 5.587, 1.067, 95% confidence interval=1.073-10.008, 2.384-13.093, 1.038-1.096, P<0.05 or P<0.01). (5) The initial concordance index of nomogram predicting model was 0.90 and the corrected concordance index was 0.89. The concordance indexes before and after correction were higher and similar, which showed that the nomogram had good concordance and predictive effect. The optimum threshold of ROC curve was 0.23, the sensitivity and specificity of optimum threshold were 86.0% and 80.0%, respectively, and the area under ROC curve was 0.90 (95% confidence interval=0.86-0.94, P<0.01). Conclusions Severe burns and damage and/or failure of organ are the main death causes of extremely severe burn patients. The death risk nomogram predicting model established on the basis of use of ventilator, use of CRRT, and burn index have good predictive ability for death of extremely severe burn patients.

     

  • Relative Articles

    [1]Jiang Shengpan, Gao Xiaoqing, Luan Xiagang, Tan Yiqing. Establishment and validation of a risk prediction model for pulmonary embolism in severe burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2024, 40(12): 1114-1122. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20240122-00028
    [2]Guo Qingjiao, Ouyang Jing, Rao Jiaqin, Zhang Yizhi, Yu Lihong, Xu Wanying, Long Jinhua, Gao Xiuhua, Wu Xiaoyan, Gu Ying. Construction and preliminary validation of a risk prediction model for the recurrence of diabetic foot ulcer in diabetic patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2023, 39(12): 1149-1157. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20231101-00166
    [3]Li Quan, Ba Te, Cao Shengjun, Chen Qiang, Zhou Biao, Yan Zengqiang, Hou Zhihui, Wang Lingfeng. Establishment and validation of a risk prediction model for disseminated intravascular coagulation patients with electrical burns[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2023, 39(8): 738-745. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20230419-00132
    [4]Chen Huayong, Xin Guohua. Research advances on prognosis-related forecasting models for burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2023, 39(9): 891-895. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20221022-00468
    [5]Han Chao, Ji Peng, Shang Yage, Li Jin, Wang Kejia, Cao Tao, Hu Dahai, Tao Ke. Epidemiological characteristics of nosocomial infection in hospitalized children with burns and the establishment and verification of a risk prediction model[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2023, 39(11): 1006-1013. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20230812-00046
    [6]Wang Hua, Zhao Peng, Sun Dan, Wu Xing, Yuan Qinfang, Wang Kewei. Epidemiological characteristics and the establishment and evaluation of a risk prediction model for nosocomial infection in burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2022, 38(12): 1170-1178. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20220214-00025
    [7]Li Jingyan, Yao Yongming, Tian Yingping. Early predictive value of high density lipoprotein cholesterol for secondary acute kidney injury in sepsis patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2022, 38(2): 130-136. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20210917-00325
    [8]Zhang Wei, Liu Baohui, Xia Chengde, Qiu Ningning, Lou Jihe, Di Haiping, Xue Jidong, Li Gang. Predictive value of D-dimer for deep venous thrombosis of lower extremity in adult burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2022, 38(4): 335-340. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20201021-00444
    [9]Xie Zhiqin, Guo Guanghua, Yang Zhen, Yi Hanxiao, Wang Shuilian, Tang Xinrong, Liu Deguang, Zeng Yande. Comparative study of three scores in predicting the death risk of severe burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2022, 38(2): 184-189. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20201113-00473
    [11]Ren Haitao, Chen Huaqing, Han Chunmao. Establishment of a predictive model for acute respiratory distress syndrome and analysis of its predictive value in critical burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2021, 37(4): 333-339. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200301-00109
    [12]Dong Chen, Yu Zhou, Liu Wei, Liu Hengxin, Tang Yinke, Ma Xianjie. Establishment and validation of a clinical prediction model for infection risk at the placement sites of skin and soft tissue expanders[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2021, 37(9): 846-852. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200619-00314
    [13]Zhang Yin, Ma Zhenzhu, Wu Beiwen, Dou Yi, Zhang Qin, Yang Luyu, Chen Erzhen. Establishment of an early risk prediction model for bloodstream infection and analysis of its predictive value in patients with extremely severe burns[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2021, 37(6): 530-537. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20210114-00021
    [14]Zhang Peng, Yuan Lili, Luo Jia, Song Huapei, Xiang Fei, Luo Gaoxing, Huang Yuesheng. Influencing factors and their predictive value of skin graft survival after Meek grafting in severe burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2021, 37(3): 243-249. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20201127-00503
    [15]Fan Junhao, Sun Yifang, Wu Guosheng, Wang Kang′an, Wei Jiao, Sun Yu. Value of joint prediction model based on the modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome score for predicting mortality risk of patients with large area burns at early stage after admission[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2020, 36(1): 42-47. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2020.01.008
    [16]Tang Chenqi, Li Junqiang, Xu Dayuan, Liu Xiaobin, Hou Wenjia, Lyu Kaiyang, Xiao Shichu, Xia Zhaofan. Comparison of machine learning method and logistic regression model in prediction of acute kidney injury in severely burned patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2018, 34(6): 343-348. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2018.06.006
    [17]Jiang Meijun, Chu Zhigang, Xie Qionghui, Huang Wenwei, Ruan Jingjing, Xie Weiguo. Application of laser speckle perfusion imaging in predicting wound healing time of burn patients[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2016, 32(12): 721-724. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2016.12.004
    [18]Guo Feng, Huan Jingning, . Clinical significance of continuous thrombocytopenia in predicting sepsis after severe burn[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2014, 30(4): 295-298. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2014.04.002
    [20]CHENG Tian-min, RAN Xin-ze. Studies on the treatment of combined radiation-burn injury[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS, 2008, 24(5): 387-389.
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(16)

    1. 沈辉,云天奇,代伟宏. 急危重多发伤胃肠破裂急诊修复术后不良预后风险预测模型的构建与验证. 临床外科杂志. 2024(04): 425-428 .
    2. 杨小娟,李蓉,贾平,徐春贻,樊宇. 1例特重度烧伤伴重度吸入性损伤并发糖尿病酮症酸中毒患者的护理. 护士进修杂志. 2024(13): 1441-1444 .
    3. 佐方清,苏加庆,李阳,张丽娟,蓝莹莹,陈渝,龚雅利,陈雅洁,李俊达,彭毅志,罗高兴,袁志强. 大面积烧伤患者住院期间血红蛋白最低值与预后的关系. 中华烧伤与创面修复杂志. 2024(06): 543-550 . 本站查看
    4. 赵恒,陈宇,冯芳,董晨明. 个体化预测脓毒症患者并发急性肾损伤的风险列线图的建立及验证. 医学研究杂志. 2024(09): 69-73 .
    5. 陈华勇,辛国华. 烧伤患者预后相关预测模型的研究进展. 中华烧伤与创面修复杂志. 2023(09): 891-895 . 本站查看
    6. 闫丹萍,王钰炜,王飒. 1例特重度烧伤伴吸入性损伤患者并发喉痉挛的急救护理. 中华护理杂志. 2023(21): 2650-2653 .
    7. 谢志勤,郭光华,杨珍,易含笑,王水连,唐鑫荣,刘德广,曾彦德. 三种评分预测严重烧伤患者死亡风险的对比研究. 中华烧伤与创面修复杂志. 2022(02): 184-189 . 本站查看
    8. 叶华,刘燕梅,周孝亮,汪显林,涂家金,徐泽华. 中性粒细胞明胶酶相关载脂蛋白对严重烧伤患者肾损害预测价值的研究. 当代医学. 2022(10): 160-162 .
    9. 陈琳,曹莉莉,陈素华. 基于Logistic回归模型风险预测的护理模式对妇科腹腔镜术后胃肠蠕动功能恢复及生活质量的影响. 世界华人消化杂志. 2022(07): 327-335 .
    10. 李琚,祝文娟. 个体化预测恶性淋巴瘤患者合并贫血风险的Nomogram模型建立. 临床输血与检验. 2022(03): 369-374 .
    11. 张玲玲,郑瑞平,张晓艳,张伟,王文. 1例特重度烧伤患者的康复护理. 现代临床护理. 2022(05): 82-86 .
    12. 谢新美,吴斯敏,黄道安,闭月琼. 构建个体化预测乳腺癌患者术后医院感染的Nomogram模型. 湖北科技学院学报(医学版). 2022(04): 313-317 .
    13. 王曌华,赵培东,卢文霄,张永,杨文元,裴敬仲,武延朋. 自体微粒皮联合大张异种猪皮移植修复大面积烧伤创面的临床研究. 中国美容医学. 2022(12): 24-26 .
    14. 黄仕光,谢宇,杜大维. 大面积深度烧伤患者Meek植皮术后血糖水平对手术效果的影响:基于倾向性评分匹配的回顾性研究. 广西医学. 2022(19): 2226-2230 .
    15. 王华,赵朋,孙丹,武星,袁琴芳,王克伟. 烧伤患者医院感染的流行病学特点及风险预测模型的构建与评价. 中华烧伤与创面修复杂志. 2022(12): 1170-1178 . 本站查看
    16. 任海涛,陈华清,韩春茂. 危重烧伤患者发生急性呼吸窘迫综合征预测模型的建立及其预测价值分析. 中华烧伤杂志. 2021(04): 333-339 .

    Other cited types(2)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-040510152025
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 9.4 %FULLTEXT: 9.4 %META: 75.7 %META: 75.7 %PDF: 14.9 %PDF: 14.9 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 3.0 %其他: 3.0 %上海: 1.3 %上海: 1.3 %乌鲁木齐: 0.9 %乌鲁木齐: 0.9 %北京: 6.8 %北京: 6.8 %北方邦: 0.4 %北方邦: 0.4 %十堰: 0.4 %十堰: 0.4 %南京: 0.4 %南京: 0.4 %南宁: 0.4 %南宁: 0.4 %南昌: 8.1 %南昌: 8.1 %台北: 0.4 %台北: 0.4 %合肥: 0.4 %合肥: 0.4 %咸阳: 0.4 %咸阳: 0.4 %哈尔滨: 0.4 %哈尔滨: 0.4 %哥伦布: 0.4 %哥伦布: 0.4 %天津: 0.4 %天津: 0.4 %山景城: 0.4 %山景城: 0.4 %广州: 1.7 %广州: 1.7 %张家口: 8.9 %张家口: 8.9 %成都: 3.0 %成都: 3.0 %日照: 0.4 %日照: 0.4 %昆明: 0.9 %昆明: 0.9 %普赖恩维尔: 0.4 %普赖恩维尔: 0.4 %武汉: 0.4 %武汉: 0.4 %江门: 1.3 %江门: 1.3 %洛杉矶: 0.4 %洛杉矶: 0.4 %深圳: 0.4 %深圳: 0.4 %漯河: 0.9 %漯河: 0.9 %福州: 0.4 %福州: 0.4 %绍兴: 0.4 %绍兴: 0.4 %芒廷维尤: 30.2 %芒廷维尤: 30.2 %芝加哥: 1.3 %芝加哥: 1.3 %蚌埠: 0.4 %蚌埠: 0.4 %衡水: 1.3 %衡水: 1.3 %西宁: 8.5 %西宁: 8.5 %西安: 1.3 %西安: 1.3 %赣州: 0.4 %赣州: 0.4 %运城: 0.4 %运城: 0.4 %郑州: 0.4 %郑州: 0.4 %重庆: 8.9 %重庆: 8.9 %镇江: 0.4 %镇江: 0.4 %长沙: 2.1 %长沙: 2.1 %其他上海乌鲁木齐北京北方邦十堰南京南宁南昌台北合肥咸阳哈尔滨哥伦布天津山景城广州张家口成都日照昆明普赖恩维尔武汉江门洛杉矶深圳漯河福州绍兴芒廷维尤芝加哥蚌埠衡水西宁西安赣州运城郑州重庆镇江长沙

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (177) PDF downloads(35) Cited by(18)
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return