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":0,"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.