| Literature DB >> 21731657 |
Erik Sundberg1, Johan Hultdin, Sofie Nilsson, Clas Ahlm.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHF) are considered to be a serious threat to public health worldwide with up to 100 million cases annually. The general hypothesis is that disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is an important part of the pathogenesis. The study objectives were to study the variability of DIC in consecutive patients with acute hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS), and to evaluate if different established DIC-scores can be used as a prognostic marker for a more severe illness. METHOD ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21731657 PMCID: PMC3121717 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021134
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Scoring templates for overt- and non-overt (NO) disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) in patients with hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome.
| Score | DIC1 | DIC2 | DIC3 | DIC4 | Score | NO-DIC1 | NO-DIC2 | |
|
| 2 | <50 | <50 | <50 | <50 | 1 | <100 | |
| 1 | 50–100 | 50–100 | 50–100 | 50–100 | 0 | >100 | ||
| 0 | >100 | >100 | >100 | >100 | ||||
|
| 3 | >2.0 | >2.48 | >2.0 | >2.48 | 1 | ≥0.2 | ≥0.64 |
| 2 | 0.2–2.0 | 0.64–2.48 | 0.2–2.0 | 0.64–2.48 | 0 | <0.2 | <0.64 | |
| 0 | <0.2 | <0.64 | <0.2 | <0.64 | ||||
|
| 2 | >1.4 | >1.4 | >1.4 | >1.4 | 1 | ≥1.2 | |
| 1 | 1.2–1.4 | 1.2–1.4 | 1.2–1.4 | 1.2–1.4 | 0 | <1.2 | ||
| 0 | <1.2 | <1.2 | <1.2 | <1.2 | ||||
|
| 1 | <1.0 | <1.0 | |||||
| 0 | ≥1.0 | ≥1.0 | ||||||
|
| 1 | <104 | <104 | Falling values add 1 point and rising | ||||
| 0 | ≥104 | ≥104 | values subtract 1 point for PK and | |||||
| D-dimer (vice versa for platelets) | ||||||||
DIC1 and NO-DIC1 correspond to standard ISTH scoring using local decision limit. DIC—2 and NO-DIC-2 uses D-dimer cut-offs based on ICU-patients. DIC3-4 are corrected with a fibrinogen/CRP-ratio instead of fibrinogen.
The original ISTH SSC template uses “moderately” and “strongly” increased values for D-dimer cutoffs [35]. In this table laboratory cutoffs are set from local decision limits and also corrected with a fibrinogen/CRP ratio [37]. Overt DIC-score ≥5p: compatible with overt DIC, <5p: suggestive for non-overt DIC.
D-dimer cutoff as in DIC1, fibrinogen corrected with fibrinogen/CRP-ratio.
D-dimer cutoff as in DIC2, fibrinogen corrected with fibrinogen/CRP-ratio.
PK-INR <1.2 was equal to PT-prolongation <3 sec, a value between 1.2 and 1.4 was equal to PT-prolongation >3 but <6 sec, and values >1.4 were equal to PT-prolongation >6 sec.
Comparison of laboratory and clinical parameters in patients with moderate/severe vs. mild hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome.
| All (n = 106) | Moderate/severe illness, (n = 13) | Mild illness (n = 93) | p value | |
|
| 53 (40–64) | 64 (55–74.5) | 51 (38.5–51.5) | 0.011 |
|
| 58/48 (54.7/45.3) | 7/6 (53.8/46.2) | 51/42 (54.8/45.2) | 0.946 |
|
| ||||
| Platelet count, ×109/L | 95 (17–404) | 38 (17–268) | 100 (19–404) | 0.001 |
| D-dimer, mg/L | 0.70 (0.12–5.31) | 0.90 (0.61–5.31) | 0.66 (0.12–3.69) | 0.021 |
| PK-INR | 1.1 (0.9–1.5) | 1.1 (0.9–1.5) | 1.0 (0.9–1.4) | 0.041 |
| Fibrinogen, g/L | 4.66 (1.57–32.0) | 4.02 (1.57–8.42) | 4.66 (2.25–32.0) | 0.137 |
| Fibrinogen/CRP ratio | 83.2 (16.4–538.6) | 68.6 (28.3–162.0) | 85.0 (16.4–538.6) | 0.242 |
| CRP, mg/L | 57 (7–236) | 56 (29–169) | 58 (7–236) | 0.686 |
| Creatinine, µmol/L | 133 (37–1548) | 245 (67–1034) | 126 (37–1548) | 0.010 |
|
| ||||
| Mild bleeding | 27 (25.5) | 3 (23.1) | 24 (25.8) | 0.833 |
| Moderate/severe bleeding | 9 (8.5) | 3 (23.1) | 6 (6.5) | 0.045 |
| Need for intensive care | 5 (4.7) | 5 (38.5) | 0 | <0.001 |
| Dialysis | 1 (0.9) | 1 (7.7) | 0 | 0.007 |
| Thrombosis | 3 (2.8) | 3 (23.1) | 0 | <0.001 |
| Need for oxygen | 15 (14.2) | 9 (69.2) | 6 (6.5) | <0.001 |
| Thrombocyte transfusion | 11 (10.4) | 5 (38.5) | 6 (6.5) | <0.001 |
| Days at hospital, n | 3 (0–55) | 11 (4–55) | 3 (0–13) | <0.001 |
| Systolic blood pressure, mmHg | 120 (80–180) | 110 (80–160) | 120 (90–180) | 0.085 |
Calculated using Mann-Whitney U and χ2 test.
Value given as median, 25th and 75th percentiles within parentheses.
Value given as median, range within parentheses.
Value given as median, range within parentheses.
Median value at the day of DIC-scoring (n = 88).
Figure 1Descriptive data on 106 consecutive patients with hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome.
Figure 1a represents median laboratory data and Figure 1b represents mean overt DIC-score.
Comparison between patient complications and presence of DIC according to overt- and non-overt DIC-score (≥5p and <5p respectively).
| Overt DIC | n | (%) | Moderate/severe illness, n (%) | Bleeding | Intensive care, n (%) | |
|
| 106 | 13(12.3) | 9(8.5) | 5(4.7) | ||
|
| ≥5p | 8 | (7.5) | 4(50.0) | 4(50.0) | 3(37.5) |
| <5p | 98 | (92.5) | 9(9.2) | 5(5.1) | 2(2.0) | |
| p value | 0.008 | 0.002 | 0.003 | |||
|
| ≥5p | 6 | (5.7) | 4(66.7) | 3(50.0) | 3(50.0) |
| <5p | 100 | (94.3) | 9(9.0) | 6(6.0) | 2(2.0) | |
| p value | 0.002 | 0.008 | 0.001 | |||
|
| ≥5p | 30 | (28.3) | 9(30.0) | 6(20.0) | 3(10.0) |
| <5p | 76 | (71.7) | 4(5.3) | 3(3.9) | 2(2.6) | |
| p value | 0.001 | 0.015 | 0.136 | |||
|
| ≥5p | 20 | (18.9) | 9(45.0) | 5(25.0) | 3(15.0) |
| <5p | 86 | (81.9) | 4(4.7) | 4(4.7) | 2(2.3) | |
| p value | <0.001 | 0.011 | 0.045 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| 106 | 13(12.3) | 9(8.5) | 5(4.7) | ||
|
| ≥5p | 28 | (26.4) | 8(28.6) | 5(17.9) | 5(17.9) |
| <5p | 78 | (73.6) | 5(6.4) | 4(5.1) | 0 | |
| p value | 0.005 | 0.053 | 0.001 | |||
|
| ≥5p | 25 | (23.6) | 7(28.0) | 5(20.0) | 4(16.0) |
| <5p | 81 | (76.4) | 6(7.4) | 4(4.9) | 1(1.2) | |
| p value | 0.012 | 0.032 | 0.011 | |||
Bleeding of moderate/major importance.
Comparison between ≥5 and <5 points. P-value calculated with Fischer exact test and χ2 test.
Predictive values and calculated area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) of overt and non-overt DIC-templates vs. moderate/severe illness.
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | AUC | p-value | |
|
| ||||||
|
| 30.8 | 95.7 | 50.0 | 91.8 | 0.63 | 0.123 |
|
| 30.8 | 97.8 | 66.7 | 91.0 | 0.64 | 0.096 |
|
| 69.2 | 77.4 | 30.0 | 94.7 | 0.73 | 0.007 |
|
| 69.2 | 88.2 | 45.0 | 95.3 | 0.79 | 0.001 |
|
| ||||||
|
| 61.5 | 79.4 | 28.6 | 93.9 | 0.71 | 0.017 |
|
| 53.8 | 81.4 | 28.0 | 92.9 | 0.68 | 0.039 |
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) are all presented as percentages.
AUC, comparison between ≥5p and <5p.
p-value for calculated AUC in predicting moderate/severe illness (ROC-analysis).