The association between mean platelet volume and poor outcome in patients with COVID-19: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE

Journal of the Intensive Care Society Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-26 DOI:10.1177/17511437221121234

Ahmad Fariz Malvi Zamzam Zein, Catur Setiya Sulistiyana, Wilson Matthew Raffaelo, Raymond Pranata

{"title":"The association between mean platelet volume and poor outcome in patients with COVID-19: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.","authors":"Ahmad Fariz Malvi Zamzam Zein, Catur Setiya Sulistiyana, Wilson Matthew Raffaelo, Raymond Pranata","doi":"10.1177/17511437221121234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study aims to assess the association between mean platelet volume (MPV) and poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using the PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases with keywords \"2019-nCoV\" OR \"SARS-CoV-2\" OR \"COVID-19\" AND \"mean platelet volume\" OR \"MPV\" on 8 July 2021. The primary outcome was composite poor outcome, defined as severe COVID-19 or mortality. The pooled effect estimate was reported as mean differences in terms of MPV between the group with and without outcome.Results: There were 17 studies which consist of 4549 patients with COVID-19 were included in this study. The incidence of poor outcome was 25% (20%-30%). Mean MPV was found to be higher in the poor outcome group in compare to no poor outcome group (10.3 ± 1.9 fL vs 9.9 ± 1.7 fL). The mean MPV difference between both group was 0.47 fL [95% CI 0.27, 0.67], p < 0.001; I2: 62.91%, p < 0.001). In the sub-group analysis, patients with severe COVID-19 had higher MPV (mean difference 0.54 fL [95% CI 0.28, 0.80], p < 0.001; I2: 54.84%, p = 0.014). Furthermore, MPV was also higher in the mortality group (mean difference 0.54 fL [95% CI 0.29, 0.80], p = 0.020; I2: 71.11%, p = 0.004). Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between MPV and poor outcome was not affected by age (p = 0.789), gender (p = 0.167), platelets (p = 0.056), white blood cells (p = 0.639), and lymphocytes (p = 0.733).Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicated that increased MPV was associated with severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Further research is needed to determine the optimum cut-off point.","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":"24 3","pages":"299-308"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10515336/pdf/10.1177_17511437221121234.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437221121234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: This study aims to assess the association between mean platelet volume (MPV) and poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using the PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases with keywords "2019-nCoV" OR "SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19" AND "mean platelet volume" OR "MPV" on 8 July 2021. The primary outcome was composite poor outcome, defined as severe COVID-19 or mortality. The pooled effect estimate was reported as mean differences in terms of MPV between the group with and without outcome.

Results: There were 17 studies which consist of 4549 patients with COVID-19 were included in this study. The incidence of poor outcome was 25% (20%-30%). Mean MPV was found to be higher in the poor outcome group in compare to no poor outcome group (10.3 ± 1.9 fL vs 9.9 ± 1.7 fL). The mean MPV difference between both group was 0.47 fL [95% CI 0.27, 0.67], p < 0.001; I²: 62.91%, p < 0.001). In the sub-group analysis, patients with severe COVID-19 had higher MPV (mean difference 0.54 fL [95% CI 0.28, 0.80], p < 0.001; I²: 54.84%, p = 0.014). Furthermore, MPV was also higher in the mortality group (mean difference 0.54 fL [95% CI 0.29, 0.80], p = 0.020; I²: 71.11%, p = 0.004). Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between MPV and poor outcome was not affected by age (p = 0.789), gender (p = 0.167), platelets (p = 0.056), white blood cells (p = 0.639), and lymphocytes (p = 0.733).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicated that increased MPV was associated with severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Further research is needed to determine the optimum cut-off point.

查看原文本刊更多论文

新冠肺炎患者平均血小板容量与不良结局之间的关系：系统综述、荟萃分析和荟萃分析。

简介：本研究旨在评估COVID-19患者的平均血小板容量（MPV）与不良结局之间的关系。方法：我们于2021年7月8日使用PubMed、Embase和Scopus数据库进行了全面的文献检索，关键词为“2019-nCoV”或“SARS-CoV-2”或“COVID-19]”和“平均血小板容量”或“MPV”。主要结果为复合不良结果，定义为严重新冠肺炎或死亡率。合并效应估计值被报告为有和无结果组之间MPV的平均差异。结果：本研究纳入了17项研究，包括4549名新冠肺炎患者。不良结局发生率为25%（20%-30%）。与无不良结果组相比，不良结果组的平均MPV更高（10.3±1.9 fL vs 9.9±1.7 fL）。两组之间的平均MPV差异为0.47fL[95%CI 0.27,0.67]，p<0.001；I2:62.91%，p<0.001）。在亚组分析中，严重新冠肺炎患者的MPV较高（平均差异0.54 fL[95%CI 0.28，0.80]，p<001；I2:54.84%，p=0.014）。此外，死亡率组的MPV也更高（平均差异0.54fL[95%CI 0.29，0.80]，p=0.020；I2:71.11%，p=0.004）。荟萃回归分析显示，MPV与不良结局之间的相关性不受年龄（p=0.789）、性别（p=0.167）、血小板（p=0.056）、白细胞（p=0.639），结论：该荟萃分析表明，新冠肺炎患者MPV升高与病情严重程度和死亡率相关。需要进一步研究以确定最佳截止点。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of the Intensive Care Society Nursing-Critical Care Nursing

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.