Warning: Undefined variable $yww in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 538
Warning: Undefined variable $yww in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 538 Zhonghua+Jie+He+He+Hu+Xi+Za+Zhi 2020 ; 43 (10): 834-838 Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Comparison of severity classification of Chinese protocol, pneumonia severity index and CURB-65 in risk stratification and prognostic assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 #MMPMID32992436
Wang X; Hu ZW; Hu Y; Cheng Y; Zhang H; Li HC; Ma J; Wang GF; Zhao JP
Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi 2020[Oct]; 43 (10): 834-838 PMID32992436show ga
Objective: To investigate the application of severity classification according to the protocol on the Diagnosis and Treatment of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19)by the National Health Commission of China, pneumonia severity index(PSI) and CURB-65?in risk stratification and prognostic assessment of COVID-19. Methods: Clinical data of 234 in-hospital patients with COVID-19 were collected and retrospectively reviewed in Wuhan Tongji Hospital. Patients were divided into 3 groups (common, severe, and critical type) at admission according to the sixth version of the protocol issued by the National Health Commission of China on Diagnosis and Treatment of COVID-19. At the same time, the severity of pneumonia was calculated by PSI and CURB-65, and the patients were stratified into 3 risk groups, namely mild, moderate, and severe groups. The hospital mortality rate was evaluated in each group. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve(AUC) for predicting hospital mortality in each rule were assessed. Results: According to the severity classification of Chinese protocol, the proportion of patients with common type, severe type, and the critical type was 15.8%, 75.6%, and 8.5%, respectively. No in-hospital death occurred in the common type. As for PSI and CURB-65, greater proportions of patients were classified as low risk(79.1% and 75.6%, respectively), while smaller proportions of patients were classified as moderate and high risk(16.2%, 15.0%; 4.7%, 9.4%, respectively). In-hospital death occurred in low and moderate risk patients identified by these 2 scoring systems. The mortality of the critical group of the Chinese protocol was 65%, and the sensitivity and specificity of predicting in-hospital mortality were 36.4% and 97.0%, respectively. The mortality in the high risk group of PSI and CURB-65 was 100% and 77.3%. The risk class V of PSI and CURB-65 score 3-5 had high specificity(100% and 97.4%, respectively)but low sensitivity(33.3% and 51.5%, respectively)in predicting in-hospital mortality. The AUC of the Chinese protocol severity classification, PSI, and CURB-65 was 0.735, 0.951, and 0.912. The optimal cut-off point of PSI was risk class ?, and the sensitivity and specificity for predicting mortality were 90.9% and 90.5%. The optimal cut-off point of CURB-65 was score 2, and the corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 84.8% and 85.6%. Conclusions: PSI and CURB-65 can be used for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in patients with COVID-19.
Zhonghua+Jie+He+He+Hu+Xi+Za+Zhi 2020 ; 43 (10): 834-838
