Comparing COVID-19 and influenza: Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, outcomes and mortality in the ICU

IF 4 3区 医学 Q2 VIROLOGY Journal of Clinical Virology Pub Date : 2023-10-10 DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105600
Quentin Pangot , François Labaste , Vincent Pey , Chloé Médrano , Adam Tuijnman , Stéphanie Ruiz , Jean-Marie Conil , Vincent Minville , Fanny Vardon-Bounes
{"title":"Comparing COVID-19 and influenza: Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, outcomes and mortality in the ICU","authors":"Quentin Pangot ,&nbsp;François Labaste ,&nbsp;Vincent Pey ,&nbsp;Chloé Médrano ,&nbsp;Adam Tuijnman ,&nbsp;Stéphanie Ruiz ,&nbsp;Jean-Marie Conil ,&nbsp;Vincent Minville ,&nbsp;Fanny Vardon-Bounes","doi":"10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Rationale</h3><p>Several authors have compared COVID-19 infection with influenza in the ICU.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to compare the baseline clinical profiles, care procedures, and mortality outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit, categorized by infection status (Influenza vs. COVID-19).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Retrospective observational study. Data were extracted from the Toulouse University Hospital from March 2014 to March 2021. To compare survival curves, we plotted the survival at Day-90 using the Kaplan-Meier curve and conducted a log-rank test. Additionally, we performed propensity score matching to adjust for confounding factors between the COVID-19 and influenza groups. Furthermore, we use the CART model for multivariate analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The study included 363 patients admitted to the ICU due to severe viral pneumonia: 152 patients (41.9 %) with influenza and 211 patients (58.1 %) with COVID-19. COVID-19 patients exhibited a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, whereas influenza patients had significantly higher severity scores (SOFA: 10 [6–12] vs. 6 [3–9], <em>p</em>&lt;0.01 and SAPS II: 51 [35–67] vs. 37 [29–50], <em>p</em>&lt;0.001). Overall mortality rates were comparable between the two groups (27.6 % (<em>n</em> = 42) in the influenza group vs. 21.8 % (<em>n</em> = 46) in the COVID-19 group, <em>p</em>=NS). Mechanical ventilation was more commonly employed in the influenza group (76.3 % (<em>n</em> = 116) vs. 59.7 % (<em>n</em> = 126), <em>p</em>&lt;0.001); however, COVID-19 patients required longer durations of mechanical ventilation (18 [9–29] days vs. 13 [5–24] days, <em>p</em>&lt;0.006) and longer hospital stays (23 [13–34] days vs. 18.5 [9–34.5] days, <em>p</em> = 0.009). The CART analysis revealed that the use of extra renal replacement therapy was the most influential prognostic factor in the influenza group, while the PaO2/FiO2-PEEP ratio played a significant role in the COVID-19 group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite differences in clinical presentation and prognostic factors, the mortality rates at 90 days, after adjusting for confounding factors, were similar between COVID-19 and influenza patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Virology","volume":"169 ","pages":"Article 105600"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Virology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653223002238","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VIROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Several authors have compared COVID-19 infection with influenza in the ICU.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the baseline clinical profiles, care procedures, and mortality outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit, categorized by infection status (Influenza vs. COVID-19).

Methods

Retrospective observational study. Data were extracted from the Toulouse University Hospital from March 2014 to March 2021. To compare survival curves, we plotted the survival at Day-90 using the Kaplan-Meier curve and conducted a log-rank test. Additionally, we performed propensity score matching to adjust for confounding factors between the COVID-19 and influenza groups. Furthermore, we use the CART model for multivariate analysis.

Results

The study included 363 patients admitted to the ICU due to severe viral pneumonia: 152 patients (41.9 %) with influenza and 211 patients (58.1 %) with COVID-19. COVID-19 patients exhibited a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, whereas influenza patients had significantly higher severity scores (SOFA: 10 [6–12] vs. 6 [3–9], p<0.01 and SAPS II: 51 [35–67] vs. 37 [29–50], p<0.001). Overall mortality rates were comparable between the two groups (27.6 % (n = 42) in the influenza group vs. 21.8 % (n = 46) in the COVID-19 group, p=NS). Mechanical ventilation was more commonly employed in the influenza group (76.3 % (n = 116) vs. 59.7 % (n = 126), p<0.001); however, COVID-19 patients required longer durations of mechanical ventilation (18 [9–29] days vs. 13 [5–24] days, p<0.006) and longer hospital stays (23 [13–34] days vs. 18.5 [9–34.5] days, p = 0.009). The CART analysis revealed that the use of extra renal replacement therapy was the most influential prognostic factor in the influenza group, while the PaO2/FiO2-PEEP ratio played a significant role in the COVID-19 group.

Conclusions

Despite differences in clinical presentation and prognostic factors, the mortality rates at 90 days, after adjusting for confounding factors, were similar between COVID-19 and influenza patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新冠肺炎和流感的比较:ICU的流行病学、临床特征、结果和死亡率。
理由:几位作者将新冠肺炎感染与ICU中的流感进行了比较。目的:本研究旨在比较入住重症监护室的患者的基线临床概况、护理程序和死亡率结果,并按感染状态进行分类(流感与新冠肺炎)。方法:回顾性观察性研究。数据提取自2014年3月至2021年3月图卢兹大学医院。为了比较生存曲线,我们使用Kaplan-Meier曲线绘制了第90天的生存率,并进行了对数秩检验。此外,我们进行了倾向评分匹配,以调整新冠肺炎和流感组之间的混淆因素。此外,我们使用CART模型进行多变量分析。结果:该研究包括363名因严重病毒性肺炎入住ICU的患者:152名(41.9%)流感患者和211名(58.1%)新冠肺炎患者。新冠肺炎患者的心血管危险因素患病率较高,而流感患者的严重程度评分显著较高(SOFA:10[6-12]对6[3-9],P结论:尽管临床表现和预后因素存在差异,但在校正混杂因素后,新冠肺炎和流感患者在90天时的死亡率相似。
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
Journal of Clinical Virology
Journal of Clinical Virology 医学-病毒学
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
1.10%
发文量
149
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Virology, an esteemed international publication, serves as the official journal for both the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology and The European Society for Clinical Virology. Dedicated to advancing the understanding of human virology in clinical settings, the Journal of Clinical Virology focuses on disseminating research papers and reviews pertaining to the clinical aspects of virology. Its scope encompasses articles discussing diagnostic methodologies and virus-induced clinical conditions, with an emphasis on practicality and relevance to clinical practice. The journal publishes on topics that include: • new diagnostic technologies • nucleic acid amplification and serologic testing • targeted and metagenomic next-generation sequencing • emerging pandemic viral threats • respiratory viruses • transplant viruses • chronic viral infections • cancer-associated viruses • gastrointestinal viruses • central nervous system viruses • one health (excludes animal health)
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Nucleic acid amplification testing using dried blood spots to confirm the diagnosis of HIV-1 in adults Quantification of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) viral load in plasma: Comparison of three commercial assays Coinfections and iterative detection of respiratory viruses among 17,689 patients between March 2021 and December 2022 in Southern France Performance evaluation of the Abbott Alinity Hepatitis C antigen next assay in a US urban emergency department population
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1