qSOFA、PRIEST、PAINT和ISARIC4C评分预测75岁以上患者重症COVID-19结局的比较分析

IF 2.9 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.3390/diseases12120304
Daniela Rosca, Vamsi Krishna, Chandramouli Chetarajupalli, Adelina Maria Jianu, Ilona Emoke Deak, Claudia Raluca Balasa Virzob, Sorina Maria Denisa Laitin, Madalina Boruga, Rodica Lighezan
{"title":"qSOFA、PRIEST、PAINT和ISARIC4C评分预测75岁以上患者重症COVID-19结局的比较分析","authors":"Daniela Rosca, Vamsi Krishna, Chandramouli Chetarajupalli, Adelina Maria Jianu, Ilona Emoke Deak, Claudia Raluca Balasa Virzob, Sorina Maria Denisa Laitin, Madalina Boruga, Rodica Lighezan","doi":"10.3390/diseases12120304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Elderly patients, particularly those over 75 years old, have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, exhibiting higher rates of severe outcomes, such as ICU admissions and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various clinical scoring systems-qSOFA, PRIEST, PAINT, and ISARIC4C-in predicting ICU admission, the need for mechanical ventilation, and mortality among elderly COVID-19 patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study conducted at two tertiary care hospitals, 131 elderly patients (aged ≥ 75) and 226 younger controls (aged < 65) with confirmed COVID-19 were included. Clinical scores were computed at admission and five days after symptom onset. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed to assess the predictive performance of the scores regarding severe outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated significantly lower survival probabilities for elderly patients with high scores at admission. Those with an ISARIC4C score above 11.8 had a survival probability of 25% compared to 74% for those below this threshold (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Similarly, elderly patients with a qSOFA score above 2.1 had a survival probability of 36% compared to 72% for those with lower scores (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The PRIEST and PAINT scores also demonstrated predictive validity; patients with a PRIEST score above 6.3 and a PAINT score above 6.5 at admission showed comparable decreases in survival probabilities. ROC analysis at five days post-symptom onset revealed that the ISARIC4C score had the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.772, suggesting excellent predictive validity for severe outcomes, including mortality. The optimal cutoffs identified were 11.2 for ISARIC4C, 6.3 for PRIEST, and 6.5 for PAINT, each displaying high sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ISARIC4C, qSOFA, PRIEST, and PAINT scores are robust predictors of severe outcomes in elderly COVID-19 patients over 75 years old, as confirmed by Kaplan-Meier and ROC analyses. These tools can be crucial for early identification of patients at high risk of adverse outcomes, guiding clinical decision making, and optimizing resource allocation. The use of these scoring systems should be encouraged in clinical settings to enhance the management of elderly COVID-19 patients. Further research is necessary to validate these findings across different populations and settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":72832,"journal":{"name":"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"12 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11727413/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of qSOFA, PRIEST, PAINT, and ISARIC4C Scores in Predicting Severe COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients Aged over 75 Years.\",\"authors\":\"Daniela Rosca, Vamsi Krishna, Chandramouli Chetarajupalli, Adelina Maria Jianu, Ilona Emoke Deak, Claudia Raluca Balasa Virzob, Sorina Maria Denisa Laitin, Madalina Boruga, Rodica Lighezan\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/diseases12120304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Elderly patients, particularly those over 75 years old, have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, exhibiting higher rates of severe outcomes, such as ICU admissions and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various clinical scoring systems-qSOFA, PRIEST, PAINT, and ISARIC4C-in predicting ICU admission, the need for mechanical ventilation, and mortality among elderly COVID-19 patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study conducted at two tertiary care hospitals, 131 elderly patients (aged ≥ 75) and 226 younger controls (aged < 65) with confirmed COVID-19 were included. Clinical scores were computed at admission and five days after symptom onset. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed to assess the predictive performance of the scores regarding severe outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated significantly lower survival probabilities for elderly patients with high scores at admission. Those with an ISARIC4C score above 11.8 had a survival probability of 25% compared to 74% for those below this threshold (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Similarly, elderly patients with a qSOFA score above 2.1 had a survival probability of 36% compared to 72% for those with lower scores (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The PRIEST and PAINT scores also demonstrated predictive validity; patients with a PRIEST score above 6.3 and a PAINT score above 6.5 at admission showed comparable decreases in survival probabilities. ROC analysis at five days post-symptom onset revealed that the ISARIC4C score had the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.772, suggesting excellent predictive validity for severe outcomes, including mortality. The optimal cutoffs identified were 11.2 for ISARIC4C, 6.3 for PRIEST, and 6.5 for PAINT, each displaying high sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ISARIC4C, qSOFA, PRIEST, and PAINT scores are robust predictors of severe outcomes in elderly COVID-19 patients over 75 years old, as confirmed by Kaplan-Meier and ROC analyses. These tools can be crucial for early identification of patients at high risk of adverse outcomes, guiding clinical decision making, and optimizing resource allocation. The use of these scoring systems should be encouraged in clinical settings to enhance the management of elderly COVID-19 patients. Further research is necessary to validate these findings across different populations and settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"12 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11727413/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases12120304\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases12120304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:老年患者,特别是75岁以上的老年患者受COVID-19的影响尤为严重,重症监护病房住院率和死亡率更高。本研究旨在评估和比较各种临床评分系统(qsofa、PRIEST、PAINT和isaric4c)在预测老年COVID-19患者ICU入院、机械通气需求和死亡率方面的有效性。方法:在两家三级医院进行回顾性队列研究,纳入确诊COVID-19的131例老年患者(≥75岁)和226例年轻对照(< 65岁)。在入院时和症状出现后5天计算临床评分。采用Kaplan-Meier生存分析和受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析来评估评分对严重结局的预测效果。结果:Kaplan-Meier分析显示,入院时得分高的老年患者生存率明显较低。ISARIC4C评分高于11.8的患者生存率为25%,低于该阈值的患者生存率为74% (p < 0.001)。同样,qSOFA评分高于2.1的老年患者的生存率为36%,而评分较低的患者的生存率为72% (p < 0.001)。PRIEST和PAINT评分也显示出预测效度;入院时PRIEST评分高于6.3和PAINT评分高于6.5的患者的生存概率也相应下降。症状出现后5天的ROC分析显示,ISARIC4C评分曲线下面积(AUC)最高,为0.772,表明对严重结局(包括死亡率)的预测效度极佳。ISARIC4C的最佳截止值为11.2,PRIEST为6.3,PAINT为6.5,均具有较高的灵敏度和特异性。结论:Kaplan-Meier和ROC分析证实,ISARIC4C、qSOFA、PRIEST和PAINT评分是75岁以上老年COVID-19患者严重结局的可靠预测因子。这些工具对于早期识别高危不良后果患者、指导临床决策和优化资源分配至关重要。应鼓励在临床环境中使用这些评分系统,以加强对老年COVID-19患者的管理。需要进一步的研究在不同的人群和环境中验证这些发现。
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
Comparative Analysis of qSOFA, PRIEST, PAINT, and ISARIC4C Scores in Predicting Severe COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients Aged over 75 Years.

Background: Elderly patients, particularly those over 75 years old, have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, exhibiting higher rates of severe outcomes, such as ICU admissions and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various clinical scoring systems-qSOFA, PRIEST, PAINT, and ISARIC4C-in predicting ICU admission, the need for mechanical ventilation, and mortality among elderly COVID-19 patients.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study conducted at two tertiary care hospitals, 131 elderly patients (aged ≥ 75) and 226 younger controls (aged < 65) with confirmed COVID-19 were included. Clinical scores were computed at admission and five days after symptom onset. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed to assess the predictive performance of the scores regarding severe outcomes.

Results: Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated significantly lower survival probabilities for elderly patients with high scores at admission. Those with an ISARIC4C score above 11.8 had a survival probability of 25% compared to 74% for those below this threshold (p < 0.001). Similarly, elderly patients with a qSOFA score above 2.1 had a survival probability of 36% compared to 72% for those with lower scores (p < 0.001). The PRIEST and PAINT scores also demonstrated predictive validity; patients with a PRIEST score above 6.3 and a PAINT score above 6.5 at admission showed comparable decreases in survival probabilities. ROC analysis at five days post-symptom onset revealed that the ISARIC4C score had the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.772, suggesting excellent predictive validity for severe outcomes, including mortality. The optimal cutoffs identified were 11.2 for ISARIC4C, 6.3 for PRIEST, and 6.5 for PAINT, each displaying high sensitivity and specificity.

Conclusions: The ISARIC4C, qSOFA, PRIEST, and PAINT scores are robust predictors of severe outcomes in elderly COVID-19 patients over 75 years old, as confirmed by Kaplan-Meier and ROC analyses. These tools can be crucial for early identification of patients at high risk of adverse outcomes, guiding clinical decision making, and optimizing resource allocation. The use of these scoring systems should be encouraged in clinical settings to enhance the management of elderly COVID-19 patients. Further research is necessary to validate these findings across different populations and settings.

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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effects of Accentuated Eccentric and Maximal Strength High-Resistance Training Programs with or Without a Curcumin-Based Formulation Supplement on Body Composition, Blood Pressure, and Metabolic Parameters in Older Adults. Orbital Radiotherapy for Graves' Ophthalmopathy: Single Institutional Experience of Efficacy and Safety. TREM2 Alleviates Neuroinflammation by Maintaining Cellular Metabolic Homeostasis and Mitophagy Activity During Early Inflammation. Knowledge and Predictors of Vitamin D Awareness Among Greek Women: A Cross-Sectional Study. Understanding the Burden and Management of Urinary Tract Infections in Women.
×
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