Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Exploratory COVID-19 death risk score based on basic laboratory tests and physiological clinical measurements.
Dong, Gui-Ying; Jin, Fei-Fei; Huang, Qi; Wu, Chun-Bo; Zhu, Ji-Hong; Wang, Tian-Bing.
  • Dong GY; Emergency Department, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China.
  • Jin FF; Trauma Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Key Laboratory of Trauma and Neural Regeneration (Peking University), Ministry of Education, Beijing100044, China.
  • Huang Q; Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing100044, China.
  • Wu CB; Emergency Department, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China.
  • Zhu JH; Emergency Department, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China.
  • Wang TB; Trauma Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Key Laboratory of Trauma and Neural Regeneration (Peking University), Ministry of Education, Beijing100044, China.
World J Emerg Med ; 13(6): 453-458, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2124060
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

In the event of a sudden shortage of medical resources, a rapid, simple, and accurate prediction model is essential for the 30-day mortality rate of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS:

This retrospective study compared the characteristics of the survivals and non-survivals of 278 patients with COVID-19. Logistic regression analysis was performed to obtain the "COVID-19 death risk score" (CDRS) model. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, discrimination and calibration were assessed. Internal validation was conducted using a regular bootstrap method.

RESULTS:

A total of 63 (22.66%) of 278 included patients died. The logistic regression analysis revealed that high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP; odds ratio [OR]=1.018), D-dimer (OR=1.101), and respiratory rate (RR; OR=1.185) were independently associated with 30-day mortality. CDRS was calculated as follows CDRS=-10.245+(0.022×hsCRP)+(0.172×D-dimer)+(0.203×RR). CDRS had the same predictive effect as the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and "confusion, uremia, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age over 65 years" (CURB-65) scores, with AUROCs of 0.984 for CDRS, 0.975 for SOFA, and 0.971 for CURB-65, respectively. And CDRS showed good calibration. The AUROC through internal validations was 0.980 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.965-0.995). Regarding the clinical value, the decision curve analysis of CDRS showed a net value similar to that of CURB-65 in this cohort.

CONCLUSION:

CDRS is a novel, efficient and accurate prediction model for the early identification of COVID-19 patients with poor outcomes. Although it is not as advanced as the other models, CDRS had a similar performance to that of SOFA and CURB-65.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study Language: English Journal: World J Emerg Med Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Wjem.j.1920-8642.2022.103

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Observational study / Prognostic study Language: English Journal: World J Emerg Med Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Wjem.j.1920-8642.2022.103