Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.

Pub Date : 2021-10-23 eCollection Date: 2021-10-01 DOI:10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287
Carolina Hincapié, Johana Ascuntar, Alba León, Fabián Jaimes
{"title":"Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.","authors":"Carolina Hincapié, Johana Ascuntar, Alba León, Fabián Jaimes","doi":"10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.</p>","PeriodicalId":72638,"journal":{"name":"","volume":"52 4","pages":"e2044287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d9/4e/1657-9534-cm-52-04-e2044287.PMC9015018.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU.

Objective: Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

Methods: Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures.

Results: Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores.

Conclusions: None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

社区获得性肺炎:急诊科三种死亡率预测评分的比较。
背景:qSOFA 是一种识别疑似感染患者和并发症风险的评分。其标准与肺炎预后评分(CRB-65 - CURB-65)的评估标准相同,但目前尚不清楚哪种评分最能预测死亡率和入住重症监护室的风险:比较三种评分标准(CURB-65、CRB-65 和 qSOFA),以确定哪种工具最能识别死亡率或入住重症监护病房(ICU)风险增加的急诊科肺炎患者:对哥伦比亚五家医院的三组前瞻性肺炎住院患者进行二次分析。方法:对哥伦比亚五家医院的三组前瞻性肺炎住院患者进行二次分析,并通过判别和校准方法对评分的准确性进行验证和比较:第一、第二和第三组分别有 158、745 和 207 名患者,死亡率分别为 32.3%、17.2% 和 18.4%,需要入住重症监护室的比例分别为 52.5%、43.5% 和 25.6%。队列 3 中 CURB-65 的死亡率 AUC-ROC 最佳(AUC-ROC=0.67)。这三个评分的校准是适当的(P>0.05):结论:这些评分均无法预测死亡率和入住重症监护室的情况。此外,CRB 65 的判别能力最低。
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信