Trauma and COVID-19: Clinical and Paraclinical similarities between Trauma Patients with Positive and Negative PCR Tests.

Bulletin of emergency and trauma Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.30476/BEAT.2022.96357.1387

Golnar Sabetian, Hossein Abdolrahimzadeh Fard, Mina Ostovan, Sina Azadikhah, Farid Zand, Mansoor Masjedi, Naeimehossadat Asmarian

{"title":"Trauma and COVID-19: Clinical and Paraclinical similarities between Trauma Patients with Positive and Negative PCR Tests.","authors":"Golnar Sabetian, Hossein Abdolrahimzadeh Fard, Mina Ostovan, Sina Azadikhah, Farid Zand, Mansoor Masjedi, Naeimehossadat Asmarian","doi":"10.30476/BEAT.2022.96357.1387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare clinical and paraclinical similarities between trauma patients with positive RT-PCR tests (PCR+ve) and the RT-PCR negative ones (PCR -ve).Methods: This a case-control study, where cases had a PCR+ve and controls had a negative result. Two groups were compared regarding (para) clinical values. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis investigated the variables predicting COVID-19 and the mortality rate.Results: Both groups were similar regarding the clinical findings and comorbidities (p>0.05). PCR+ve group had lower lymphocyte count (1.41 [1.45] vs. 1.66 [1.61], p=0.030), CPK level (411 [928.75] vs. 778 [1946.5]. p=0.006) and CRP level (17 [42.5] vs. 24 [50.75], p=0.004). However, none of these findings were significant in the multivariable analysis. Finally, PCR+ve group had increased odds of death (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.22-7.41).Conclusion: Unlike our primary hypothesis, the study failed to mark any significant (para) clinical features guiding us to detect COVID-19 earlier in trauma patients. Moreover, the PCR+ve group is at increased mortality risk. A larger, multicentric prospective study should be designed to address this issue.","PeriodicalId":9333,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of emergency and trauma","volume":"10 4","pages":"172-180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/69/84/bet-10-172.PMC9758711.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of emergency and trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/BEAT.2022.96357.1387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare clinical and paraclinical similarities between trauma patients with positive RT-PCR tests (PCR+ve) and the RT-PCR negative ones (PCR -ve).

Methods: This a case-control study, where cases had a PCR+ve and controls had a negative result. Two groups were compared regarding (para) clinical values. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis investigated the variables predicting COVID-19 and the mortality rate.

Results: Both groups were similar regarding the clinical findings and comorbidities (p>0.05). PCR+ve group had lower lymphocyte count (1.41 [1.45] vs. 1.66 [1.61], p=0.030), CPK level (411 [928.75] vs. 778 [1946.5]. p=0.006) and CRP level (17 [42.5] vs. 24 [50.75], p=0.004). However, none of these findings were significant in the multivariable analysis. Finally, PCR+ve group had increased odds of death (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.22-7.41).

Conclusion: Unlike our primary hypothesis, the study failed to mark any significant (para) clinical features guiding us to detect COVID-19 earlier in trauma patients. Moreover, the PCR+ve group is at increased mortality risk. A larger, multicentric prospective study should be designed to address this issue.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

创伤与 COVID-19：PCR 检测呈阳性和阴性的外伤患者在临床和辅助临床方面的相似性

摘要比较 RT-PCR 检测阳性（PCR+ve）和 RT-PCR 阴性（PCR-ve）创伤患者的临床和辅助临床相似性：这是一项病例对照研究，病例的检测结果为 PCR+ve，对照组的检测结果为阴性。方法：这是一项病例对照研究。多变量二元逻辑回归分析调查了预测 COVID-19 和死亡率的变量：结果：两组患者的临床表现和合并症相似（P>0.05）。PCR+ve组的淋巴细胞计数（1.41 [1.45] vs. 1.66 [1.61]，P=0.030）、CPK水平（411 [928.75] vs. 778 [1946.5]，P=0.006）和CRP水平（17 [42.5] vs. 24 [50.75]，P=0.004）较低。然而，这些结果在多变量分析中均不显著。最后，PCR+ve 组的死亡几率增加（OR=2.88；95% CI=1.22-7.41）：与我们的主要假设不同，该研究未能发现任何重要的临床特征，无法指导我们在创伤患者中更早地发现 COVID-19。此外，PCR+ve 组患者的死亡风险增加。应设计一项更大规模的多中心前瞻性研究来解决这一问题。

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分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Bulletin of emergency and trauma

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： BEAT: Bulletin of Emergency And Trauma is an international, peer-reviewed, quarterly journal coping with original research contributing to the field of emergency medicine and trauma. BEAT is the official journal of the Trauma Research Center (TRC) of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Hungarian Trauma Society (HTS) and Lusitanian Association for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ALTEC/LATES) aiming to be a publication of international repute that serves as a medium for dissemination and exchange of scientific knowledge in the emergency medicine and trauma. The aim of BEAT is to publish original research focusing on practicing and training of emergency medicine and trauma to publish peer-reviewed articles of current international interest in the form of original articles, brief communications, reviews, case reports, clinical images, and letters.