目的：两种卒中风险评估系统CHADS2和CHA2 DS2-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CHA2 DS2-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），CHA2 DS2-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， CHA2 DS2-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 CHA2 DS2-VASc .Methods A total of 420 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation were evaluated using CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-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 as-sessment 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 CHA2DS2-VASc ,the propor-tions 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 CHA2DS2-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 .
展开▼
