PengFei Cheng1, Hao Wu1, JunZhe Yang1, XiaoYang Song1, MengDa Xu1, BiXi Li1, JunJun Zhang2, MingZhe Qin1, Cheng Zhou3, Xiang Zhou4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of Central Theater Command of PLA, Wuhan, China. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Central Theater Command of PLA, Wuhan, China. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of Central Theater Command of PLA, Wuhan, China. zhouxiang188483@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the predictive significance of different pneumonia scoring systems in clinical severity and mortality risk of patients with severe novel coronavirus pneumonia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 53 cases of severe novel coronavirus pneumonia were confirmed. The APACHE II, MuLBSTA and CURB-65 scores of different treatment methods were calculated, and the predictive power of each score on clinical respiratory support treatment and mortality risk was compared. RESULTS: The APACHE II score showed the largest area under ROC curve in both noninvasive and invasive respiratory support treatment assessments, which is significantly different from that of CURB-65. Further, the MuLBSTA score had the largest area under ROC curve in terms of death risk assessment, which is also significantly different from that of CURB-65; however, no difference was noted with the APACHE II score. CONCLUSION: For patients with COVID, the APACHE II score is an effective predictor of the disease severity and mortality risk. Further, the MuLBSTA score is a good predictor only in terms of mortality risk.
PURPOSE: To investigate the predictive significance of different pneumonia scoring systems in clinical severity and mortality risk of patients with severe novel coronavirus pneumonia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 53 cases of severe novel coronavirus pneumonia were confirmed. The APACHE II, MuLBSTA and CURB-65 scores of different treatment methods were calculated, and the predictive power of each score on clinical respiratory support treatment and mortality risk was compared. RESULTS: The APACHE II score showed the largest area under ROC curve in both noninvasive and invasive respiratory support treatment assessments, which is significantly different from that of CURB-65. Further, the MuLBSTA score had the largest area under ROC curve in terms of death risk assessment, which is also significantly different from that of CURB-65; however, no difference was noted with the APACHE II score. CONCLUSION: For patients with COVID, the APACHE II score is an effective predictor of the disease severity and mortality risk. Further, the MuLBSTA score is a good predictor only in terms of mortality risk.
Authors: Mario Ynga-Durand; Henrike Maaß; Marko Milošević; Fran Krstanović; Marina Pribanić Matešić; Stipan Jonjić; Alen Protić; Ilija Brizić; Alan Šustić; Luka Čičin-Šain Journal: Viruses Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 5.818