Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2025
Prognostic value of Glasgow prognostic score in patients undergoing hemodialysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sakamoto Ryosuke, Torigoe Kenta, Abe Shinichi, Kitamura Mineaki, Funakoshi Satoshi, Takazono Takahiro, Sakamoto Noriho, Mukae Hiroshi, Nishino Tomoya
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Usefulness of the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), modified GPS (mGPS), and high-sensitivity mGPS (HS-mGPS) in the prognosis of patients undergoing hemodialysis remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate this.
METHODS: The GPS, mGPS, and HS-mGPS were calculated retrospectively in 339 patients undergoing hemodialysis; their association with all-cause mortality was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Survival rates decreased according to the GPS (0, 1, and 2), but were similar between the mGPS and HS-mGPS. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, the GPS, not the mGPS or HS-mGPS, was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with scores 1 (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29-2.42, p = 0.0004) and 2 (HR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.91-4.32, p < 0.0001) compared with score 0.
CONCLUSIONS: The GPS classified patients into poor prognostic risk groups more clearly than other scores.
METHODS: The GPS, mGPS, and HS-mGPS were calculated retrospectively in 339 patients undergoing hemodialysis; their association with all-cause mortality was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Survival rates decreased according to the GPS (0, 1, and 2), but were similar between the mGPS and HS-mGPS. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, the GPS, not the mGPS or HS-mGPS, was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with scores 1 (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29-2.42, p = 0.0004) and 2 (HR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.91-4.32, p < 0.0001) compared with score 0.
CONCLUSIONS: The GPS classified patients into poor prognostic risk groups more clearly than other scores.