Literature DB >> 15808136

Prospective comparison of three validated prediction rules for prognosis in community-acquired pneumonia.

Drahomir Aujesky1, Thomas E Auble, Donald M Yealy, Roslyn A Stone, D Scott Obrosky, Thomas P Meehan, Louis G Graff, Jonathan M Fine, Michael J Fine.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed the performance of 3 validated prognostic rules in predicting 30-day mortality in community-acquired pneumonia: the 20 variable Pneumonia Severity Index and the easier to calculate CURB (confusion, urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, blood pressure) and CURB-65 severity scores. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 3181 patients with community-acquired pneumonia from 32 hospital emergency departments (January-December 2001) and assessed mortality 30 days after initial presentation. Patients were stratified into Pneumonia Severity Index risk classes (I-V) and CURB (0-4) and CURB-65 (0-5) risk strata. We compared the discriminatory power (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of these rules to predict mortality and their accuracy based on sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios.
RESULTS: The Pneumonia Severity Index (risk classes I-III) classified a greater proportion of patients as low risk (68% [2152/3181]) than either a CURB score <1 (51% [1635/3181]) or a CURB-65 score <2 (61% [1952/3181]). Low-risk patients identified based on the Pneumonia Severity Index had a slightly lower mortality (1.4% [31/2152]) than patients classified as low-risk based on the CURB (1.7% [28/1635]) or the CURB-65 (1.7% [33/1952]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was higher for the Pneumonia Severity Index (0.81) than for either the CURB (0.73) or CURB-65 (0.76) scores (P <0.001, for each pairwise comparison). At comparable cut-points, the Pneumonia Severity Index had a higher sensitivity and a somewhat higher negative predictive value for mortality than either CURB score.
CONCLUSIONS: The more complex Pneumonia Severity Index has a higher discriminatory power for short-term mortality, defines a greater proportion of patients at low risk, and is slightly more accurate in identifying patients at low risk than either CURB score.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15808136     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  78 in total

1.  Reorganising the pandemic triage processes to ethically maximise individuals' best interests.

Authors:  Andrew Tillyard
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  CURB-65 pneumonia severity assessment adapted for electronic decision support.

Authors:  Barbara E Jones; Jason Jones; Thomas Bewick; Wei Shen Lim; Dominik Aronsky; Samuel M Brown; Wim G Boersma; Menno M van der Eerden; Nathan C Dean
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 3.  Validity of British Thoracic Society guidance (the CRB-65 rule) for predicting the severity of pneumonia in general practice: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maggie McNally; James Curtain; Kirsty K O'Brien; Borislav D Dimitrov; Tom Fahey
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society consensus guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults.

Authors:  Lionel A Mandell; Richard G Wunderink; Antonio Anzueto; John G Bartlett; G Douglas Campbell; Nathan C Dean; Scott F Dowell; Thomas M File; Daniel M Musher; Michael S Niederman; Antonio Torres; Cynthia G Whitney
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  Severity assessment in community-acquired pneumonia: moving on.

Authors:  Wei Shen Lim
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 9.139

6.  Sophisticated biomarkers for community-acquired pneumonia severity asessment: gadgets or useful tools?

Authors:  François G Brivet; Frédéric M Jacobs; Dominique Prat; Bogdan D Grigoriu
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-01-08       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  Comparison of Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia Who Did and Did not Receive Treatment in Accordance with the 2009 Pneumonia Guideline of Turkish Thoracic Society.

Authors:  Öznur Kılıç Soylar; Oğuz Kılınç; Hülya Ellidokuz
Journal:  Turk Thorac J       Date:  2015-04-01

Review 8.  Recent changes in the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults.

Authors:  Hannah J Durrington; Charlotte Summers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-06-21

Review 9.  Defining and predicting severe community-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  Samuel M Brown; Nathan C Dean
Journal:  Curr Opin Infect Dis       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.915

10.  Risk prediction with procalcitonin and clinical rules in community-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  David T Huang; Lisa A Weissfeld; John A Kellum; Donald M Yealy; Lan Kong; Michael Martino; Derek C Angus
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 5.721

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.