Pedro Pablo España Yandiola1, Alberto Capelastegui2, José Quintana3, Rosa Diez2, Inmaculada Gorordo2, Amaia Bilbao4, Rafael Zalacain5, Rosario Menendez6, Antonio Torres7. 1. Service of Pneumology, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Galdakao, Bizkaia, Spain. Electronic address: pedropablo.espanayandiola@osakidetza.net. 2. Service of Pneumology, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Galdakao, Bizkaia, Spain. 3. Research Unit, Hospital Galdakao-Usansolo, Galdakao, Bizkaia, Spain. 4. Basque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research, Sondika, Bizkaia, Spain. 5. Cruces Hospital, Vizcaya, Spain. 6. Service of Pneumonology, Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain. 7. Hospital Clinic Institut d'Investigacions Biomédiques August Pi i Sunyer, Universita de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The comparative accuracy and discriminatory power of three validated rules for predicting clinically relevant outcomes other than mortality in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are unknown. METHODS: We prospectively compared the newly developed severe community-acquired pneumonia (SCAP) score, pneumonia severity index (PSI), and the British Thoracic Society confusion, urea > 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate > or = 30 breaths/min, BP < 90 mm Hg systolic or < 60 mm Hg diastolic, age > or = 65 years (CURB-65) rule in an internal validation cohort of 1,189 consecutive adult inpatients with CAP from one hospital and an external validation cohort of 671 consecutive adult inpatients from three other hospitals. Major adverse outcomes were admission to ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, progression to severe sepsis, or treatment failure. Mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was also evaluated. The rules were compared based on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic. RESULTS: The rate of all adverse outcomes and hospital LOS increased directly with increasing SCAP, PSI, or CURB-65 scores (p < 0.001) in both cohorts. Patients classified as high risk by the SCAP score showed higher rates of adverse outcomes (ICU admission, 35.8%; mechanical ventilation, 16.4%; severe sepsis, 98.5%; treatment failure, 22.4%) than PSI and CURB-65 high-risk classes. The discriminatory power of SCAP, as measured by AUC, was 0.75 for ICU admission, 0.76 for mechanical ventilation, 0.79 for severe sepsis, and 0.61 for treatment failure in the external validation cohort. AUC differences with PSI or CURB-65 were found. CONCLUSIONS: The SCAP score is as accurate or better than other current scoring systems in predicting adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized with CAP while helping classify patients into different categories of increasing risk for potentially closer monitoring.
BACKGROUND: The comparative accuracy and discriminatory power of three validated rules for predicting clinically relevant outcomes other than mortality in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are unknown. METHODS: We prospectively compared the newly developed severe community-acquired pneumonia (SCAP) score, pneumonia severity index (PSI), and the British Thoracic Society confusion, urea > 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate > or = 30 breaths/min, BP < 90 mm Hg systolic or < 60 mm Hg diastolic, age > or = 65 years (CURB-65) rule in an internal validation cohort of 1,189 consecutive adult inpatients with CAP from one hospital and an external validation cohort of 671 consecutive adult inpatients from three other hospitals. Major adverse outcomes were admission to ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, progression to severe sepsis, or treatment failure. Mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was also evaluated. The rules were compared based on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic. RESULTS: The rate of all adverse outcomes and hospital LOS increased directly with increasing SCAP, PSI, or CURB-65 scores (p < 0.001) in both cohorts. Patients classified as high risk by the SCAP score showed higher rates of adverse outcomes (ICU admission, 35.8%; mechanical ventilation, 16.4%; severe sepsis, 98.5%; treatment failure, 22.4%) than PSI and CURB-65 high-risk classes. The discriminatory power of SCAP, as measured by AUC, was 0.75 for ICU admission, 0.76 for mechanical ventilation, 0.79 for severe sepsis, and 0.61 for treatment failure in the external validation cohort. AUC differences with PSI or CURB-65 were found. CONCLUSIONS: The SCAP score is as accurate or better than other current scoring systems in predicting adverse outcomes in patients hospitalized with CAP while helping classify patients into different categories of increasing risk for potentially closer monitoring.
Authors: Ognjen Gajic; Ousama Dabbagh; Pauline K Park; Adebola Adesanya; Steven Y Chang; Peter Hou; Harry Anderson; J Jason Hoth; Mark E Mikkelsen; Nina T Gentile; Michelle N Gong; Daniel Talmor; Ednan Bajwa; Timothy R Watkins; Emir Festic; Murat Yilmaz; Remzi Iscimen; David A Kaufman; Annette M Esper; Ruxana Sadikot; Ivor Douglas; Jonathan Sevransky; Michael Malinchoc Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Dionne C W Braeken; Frits M E Franssen; Hartwig Schütte; Mathias W Pletz; Robert Bals; Peter Martus; Gernot G U Rohde Journal: Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis Date: 2015-03-26
Authors: Ignacio Martín-Loeches; Jordi Solé-Violán; Felipe Rodríguez de Castro; M Isabel García-Laorden; Luis Borderías; José Blanquer; Olga Rajas; M Luisa Briones; Javier Aspa; Estefanía Herrera-Ramos; José Alberto Marcos-Ramos; Ithaisa Sologuren; Nereida González-Quevedo; José María Ferrer-Agüero; Judith Noda; Carlos Rodríguez-Gallego Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: James D Chalmers; Pallavi Mandal; Aran Singanayagam; Ahsan R Akram; Gourab Choudhury; Philip M Short; Adam T Hill Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 17.440