实时荧光定量PCR周期阈值与COVID-19患者临床进展、死亡率和实验室参数的相关性

IF 0.3 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Klimik Journal Pub Date : 2023-09-30 DOI:10.36519/kd.2023.4579
Ayse Alici, Samet Cam, Mustafa Kilic, Meryem Vural, Ozgur Pasa
{"title":"实时荧光定量PCR周期阈值与COVID-19患者临床进展、死亡率和实验室参数的相关性","authors":"Ayse Alici, Samet Cam, Mustafa Kilic, Meryem Vural, Ozgur Pasa","doi":"10.36519/kd.2023.4579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The cycle threshold value was used to predict disease severity, disease progression, determine transmissibility, and differentiate active viral replication from prolonged virus shedding. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between rRT-PCR cycle threshold and clinical course, mortality and laboratory parameters in COVID-19 patients. Methods: The patients included in the study were grouped according to how they were followed; as outpatients, service and intensive care unit patients. Data of age, gender, length of hospital stay, survival status and comorbidities of the patients were obtained from the hospital information system. In addition, CRP, ferritin, albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, procalcitonin and iron values of inpatients were reviewed retrospectively. Cycle threshold values of the patients were compared with each parameter separately. Results: 1339 patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR test were included in the study. Of the patients, 774 (58%) were outpatients, 548 (41%) were in the ward, and 17 (1%) were in the intensive care unit. No significant difference was found between any of the groups when the cycle threshold values of the groups were compared statistically. Fifty (3.7%) of the patients included in the study died. Cycle threshold values of deceased patients were found to be significantly lower than those who survived (p=0.019). 306 (22.8%) of the patients had comorbidities. When the cycle threshold values of patients with and without comorbid disease were compared, no significant difference was found between any of the groups (p=0.850). In addition, no significant correlation was found between the length of hospital stay, age, CRP, LDH, ferritin, procalcitonin, albumin and iron values and the cycle threshold value. Conclusion: In conclusion, we did not find a significant difference between the cycle threshold values of outpatients, ward patients and intensive care patients. No significant correlation was found between the laboratory parameters, length of hospital stay and age, and the cycle threshold: however, deceased patients were found to have lower cycle thresholds than surviving patients.","PeriodicalId":44309,"journal":{"name":"Klimik Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correlation of Real-Time PCR Cycle Threshold Values and Clinical Progress, Mortality, and Laboratory Parameters of COVID-19 Patients\",\"authors\":\"Ayse Alici, Samet Cam, Mustafa Kilic, Meryem Vural, Ozgur Pasa\",\"doi\":\"10.36519/kd.2023.4579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: The cycle threshold value was used to predict disease severity, disease progression, determine transmissibility, and differentiate active viral replication from prolonged virus shedding. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between rRT-PCR cycle threshold and clinical course, mortality and laboratory parameters in COVID-19 patients. Methods: The patients included in the study were grouped according to how they were followed; as outpatients, service and intensive care unit patients. Data of age, gender, length of hospital stay, survival status and comorbidities of the patients were obtained from the hospital information system. In addition, CRP, ferritin, albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, procalcitonin and iron values of inpatients were reviewed retrospectively. Cycle threshold values of the patients were compared with each parameter separately. Results: 1339 patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR test were included in the study. Of the patients, 774 (58%) were outpatients, 548 (41%) were in the ward, and 17 (1%) were in the intensive care unit. No significant difference was found between any of the groups when the cycle threshold values of the groups were compared statistically. Fifty (3.7%) of the patients included in the study died. Cycle threshold values of deceased patients were found to be significantly lower than those who survived (p=0.019). 306 (22.8%) of the patients had comorbidities. When the cycle threshold values of patients with and without comorbid disease were compared, no significant difference was found between any of the groups (p=0.850). In addition, no significant correlation was found between the length of hospital stay, age, CRP, LDH, ferritin, procalcitonin, albumin and iron values and the cycle threshold value. Conclusion: In conclusion, we did not find a significant difference between the cycle threshold values of outpatients, ward patients and intensive care patients. No significant correlation was found between the laboratory parameters, length of hospital stay and age, and the cycle threshold: however, deceased patients were found to have lower cycle thresholds than surviving patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Klimik Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Klimik Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36519/kd.2023.4579\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Klimik Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36519/kd.2023.4579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:周期阈值用于预测疾病严重程度,疾病进展,确定传播性,并区分活跃的病毒复制和延长的病毒脱落。在本研究中,我们旨在评估rRT-PCR周期阈值与COVID-19患者临床病程、死亡率和实验室参数的关系。方法:根据随访方式对纳入研究的患者进行分组;作为门诊、服务和重症监护室病人。从医院信息系统获取患者的年龄、性别、住院时间、生存状况及合并症等数据。并对住院患者CRP、铁蛋白、白蛋白、乳酸脱氢酶、降钙素原、铁值进行回顾性分析。将患者的周期阈值分别与各参数进行比较。结果:1339例SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR检测阳性患者纳入研究。其中门诊774例(58%),病房548例(41%),重症监护病房17例(1%)。两组间循环阈值比较无统计学差异。50例(3.7%)纳入研究的患者死亡。死亡患者的周期阈值明显低于存活患者(p=0.019)。306例(22.8%)患者有合并症。当比较有和无合并症患者的周期阈值时,两组间无显著差异(p=0.850)。此外,住院时间、年龄、CRP、LDH、铁蛋白、降钙素原、白蛋白、铁值与周期阈值无显著相关。结论:综上所述,门诊患者、病房患者和重症监护患者的周期阈值无显著差异。实验室参数、住院时间和年龄与周期阈值之间未发现显著相关性:然而,发现死亡患者的周期阈值低于存活患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Correlation of Real-Time PCR Cycle Threshold Values and Clinical Progress, Mortality, and Laboratory Parameters of COVID-19 Patients
Objective: The cycle threshold value was used to predict disease severity, disease progression, determine transmissibility, and differentiate active viral replication from prolonged virus shedding. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between rRT-PCR cycle threshold and clinical course, mortality and laboratory parameters in COVID-19 patients. Methods: The patients included in the study were grouped according to how they were followed; as outpatients, service and intensive care unit patients. Data of age, gender, length of hospital stay, survival status and comorbidities of the patients were obtained from the hospital information system. In addition, CRP, ferritin, albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, procalcitonin and iron values of inpatients were reviewed retrospectively. Cycle threshold values of the patients were compared with each parameter separately. Results: 1339 patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR test were included in the study. Of the patients, 774 (58%) were outpatients, 548 (41%) were in the ward, and 17 (1%) were in the intensive care unit. No significant difference was found between any of the groups when the cycle threshold values of the groups were compared statistically. Fifty (3.7%) of the patients included in the study died. Cycle threshold values of deceased patients were found to be significantly lower than those who survived (p=0.019). 306 (22.8%) of the patients had comorbidities. When the cycle threshold values of patients with and without comorbid disease were compared, no significant difference was found between any of the groups (p=0.850). In addition, no significant correlation was found between the length of hospital stay, age, CRP, LDH, ferritin, procalcitonin, albumin and iron values and the cycle threshold value. Conclusion: In conclusion, we did not find a significant difference between the cycle threshold values of outpatients, ward patients and intensive care patients. No significant correlation was found between the laboratory parameters, length of hospital stay and age, and the cycle threshold: however, deceased patients were found to have lower cycle thresholds than surviving patients.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Klimik Journal
Klimik Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
Fourth-year Results of HBeAg Negative Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Discontinuing Nucleos(t)ide Analogue Therapy Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole and Ciprofloxacin Resistance Rates in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. in Urinary Tract Infections: A 10-Year Evaluation The Incidence and Factors Affecting the 28-day Hospital Admission Among Adult Ambulatory COVID-19 Patients Correlation of Real-Time PCR Cycle Threshold Values and Clinical Progress, Mortality, and Laboratory Parameters of COVID-19 Patients Evaluation of Risk Factors Causing Nosocomial Acinetobacter Bacteremia and Mortality in the Intensive Care Unit
×
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