Pneumonia Severity Assessment Tools for Predicting Mortality in Patients with Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), no specific severity assessment tools have been developed for healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: In this review, we assessed the clinical significance of severity assessment tools for HCAP.
METHODS: We identified related articles from the PubMed database. The eligibility criteria were original research articles evaluating severity scoring tools and reporting the outcomes of mortality in patients with HCAP.
RESULTS: Eight articles were included in the meta-analysis. The PORT score and CURB-65 were evaluated in 7 and 8 studies, respectively. Using cutoff values of ≥IV and V for the PORT score, the diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 5.28 (2.49-11.17) and 3.76 (2.88-4.92), respectively, and the areas under the curve (AUCs) were 0.68 (0.64-0.72) and 0.71 (0.67-0.75), respectively. Conversely, the AUCs for ≥IV and V were 0.71 (0.67-0.76) and 0.74 (0.70-0.78), respectively, when applied only to nonimmunocompromised patients. In contrast, when using cutoff values of ≥2 and ≥3 for CURB-65, the DORs were 3.35 (2.26-4.97) and 2.65 (2.05-3.43), respectively, and the AUCs were 0.65 (0.61-0.69) and 0.66 (0.62-0.70), respectively. Conversely, the AUCs for ≥2 and ≥3 were 0.65 (0.61-0.69) and 0.68 (0.64-0.72), respectively, when applied only to nonimmunocompromised patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The PORT score and CURB-65 do not have substantial power compared with the tools for CAP patients, although the PORT score is more useful than CURB-65 for predicting mortality in HCAP patients. According to our results, however, these tools, especially the PORT score, can be more useful when limited to nonimmunocompromised patients.