Hospitalized patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies who have low complement levels are at increased risk for death-a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether low complement levels can predict worse outcomes in patients hospitalized with positive anti-phospholipid antibodies. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. We obtained demographics, laboratory, and prognostic data of all consecutive patients hospitalized between 2007 and 2021, for whatever reason, with at least one positively abnormal anti-phospholipid antibody, who were also tested for complement levels (C3 or C4). We then compared the rates of long-term mortality, 1-year mortality, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary emboli between groups of low complement and normal complement levels. Multivariate analysis was used to control for levels of clinical and laboratory confounders. RESULTS: We identified 32,286 patients tested for anti-phospholipid antibodies. Of those patients, 6800 tested positive for at least one anti-phospholipid antibody and had a documented complement level. Significant higher mortality rates were found in the low complement group, with an odds ratio for mortality (OR 1.93 CI 1.63-2.27 p < .001). Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli rates were similar. Multivariate analysis confirmed that low complement was an independent predictor for mortality after controlling for age, sex, dyslipidemia, chronic heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and anemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results indicate that low complement is associated with significantly higher mortality rates in admitted patients with elevated levels of anti-phospholipid antibodies. This finding correlates with recent literature suggesting a vital role for complement activation in anti-phospholipid syndrome.

Mortality prediction upon hospital admission - the value of clinical assessment: A retrospective, matched cohort study.

Accurate prediction of mortality upon hospital admission is of great value, both for the sake of patients and appropriate resources' allocation. A myriad of assessment tools exists for this purpose. The evidence relating to the comparative value of clinical assessment versus established indexes are scarce. We analyzed the accuracy of a senior physician's clinical assessment in a retrospective cohort of patients in a crude, general patients' population and later on a propensity matched patients' population. In one department of internal medicine in a tertiary hospital, of 9891 admitted patients, 973 (10%) were categorized as prone to death in a 6-months' duration by a senior physician. The risk of death was significantly higher for these patients [73.1% vs 14.1% mortality within 180 days; hazard ratio (HR) = 7.58; confidence intervals (CI) 7.02-8.19, P < .001]. After accounting for multiple, other patients' variables associated with increased risk of mortality, the correlation remained significant (HR = 3.25; CI 2.85-3.71, P < .001). We further performed a propensity matching analysis (a subgroup of 710 patients, subdivided to two groups with 355 patients each): survival rates were as low as 45% for patients categorized as prone to death compared to 78% in patients who weren't categorized as such (P < .001). Reliance on clinical evaluation, done by an experienced senior physician, is an appropriate tool for mortality prediction upon hospital admission, achieving high accuracy rates.