Paul M E L van Dam1, Noortje Zelis1, Sander M J van Kuijk2, Aimée E M J H Linkens3, Renée A G Brüggemann3, Bart Spaetgens3, Iwan C C van der Horst4, Patricia M Stassen1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Section Acute Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Section Geriatric Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a high burden on the healthcare system. Prediction models may assist in triaging patients. We aimed to assess the value of several prediction models in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: In this retrospective study, ED patients with COVID-19 were included. Prediction models were selected based on their feasibility. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality, secondary outcomes were 14-day mortality and a composite outcome of 30-day mortality and admission to medium care unit (MCU) or intensive care unit (ICU). The discriminatory performance of the prediction models was assessed using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: We included 403 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 23.6%, 14-day mortality was 19.1%, 66 patients (16.4%) were admitted to ICU, 48 patients (11.9%) to MCU, and 152 patients (37.7%) met the composite endpoint. Eleven prediction models were included. The RISE UP score and 4 C mortality scores showed very good discriminatory performance for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.83 and 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.88 for both), significantly higher than that of the other models. CONCLUSION: The RISE UP score and 4 C mortality score can be used to recognise patients at high risk for poor outcome and may assist in guiding decision-making and allocating resources.
INTRODUCTION:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a high burden on the healthcare system. Prediction models may assist in triaging patients. We aimed to assess the value of several prediction models in COVID-19patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: In this retrospective study, ED patients with COVID-19 were included. Prediction models were selected based on their feasibility. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality, secondary outcomes were 14-day mortality and a composite outcome of 30-day mortality and admission to medium care unit (MCU) or intensive care unit (ICU). The discriminatory performance of the prediction models was assessed using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: We included 403 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 23.6%, 14-day mortality was 19.1%, 66 patients (16.4%) were admitted to ICU, 48 patients (11.9%) to MCU, and 152 patients (37.7%) met the composite endpoint. Eleven prediction models were included. The RISE UP score and 4 C mortality scores showed very good discriminatory performance for 30-day mortality (AUC 0.83 and 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.88 for both), significantly higher than that of the other models. CONCLUSION: The RISE UP score and 4 C mortality score can be used to recognise patients at high risk for poor outcome and may assist in guiding decision-making and allocating resources.
Authors: Nathan I Shapiro; Richard E Wolfe; Richard B Moore; Eric Smith; Elizabeth Burdick; David W Bates Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Shermarke Hassan; Chava L Ramspek; Barbara Ferrari; Merel van Diepen; Raffaella Rossio; Rachel Knevel; Vincenzo la Mura; Andrea Artoni; Ida Martinelli; Alessandra Bandera; Alessandro Nobili; Andrea Gori; Francesco Blasi; Ciro Canetta; Nicola Montano; Frits R Rosendaal; Flora Peyvandi Journal: Eur J Intern Med Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 7.749
Authors: Stephen R Knight; Rishi K Gupta; Antonia Ho; Riinu Pius; Iain Buchan; Gail Carson; Thomas M Drake; Jake Dunning; Cameron J Fairfield; Carrol Gamble; Christopher A Green; Sophie Halpin; Hayley E Hardwick; Karl A Holden; Peter W Horby; Clare Jackson; Kenneth A Mclean; Laura Merson; Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam; Lisa Norman; Piero L Olliaro; Mark G Pritchard; Clark D Russell; Catherine A Shaw; Aziz Sheikh; Tom Solomon; Cathie Sudlow; Olivia V Swann; Lance C W Turtle; Peter J M Openshaw; J Kenneth Baillie; Annemarie Docherty; Malcolm G Semple; Mahdad Noursadeghi; Ewen M Harrison Journal: Thorax Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 9.102
Authors: Waleed Tharwat Aletreby; Shahzad Ahmad Mumtaz; Saima Akhtar Shahzad; Intekhab Ahmed; Mohammed Ali Alodat; Mohamed Gharba; Zohdi Ahmed Farea; Ahmed Fouad Mady; Waqas Mahmood; Huda Mhawish; Majd Munia Abdulmowla; Rehab Mohammed Nasser Journal: Saudi J Med Med Sci Date: 2022-01-12
Authors: Joshua M Riley; Patrick J Moeller; Albert G Crawford; Joseph W Schaefer; Dianna R Cheney-Peters; Chantel M Venkataraman; Chris J Li; Christa M Smaltz; Conor G Bradley; Crystal Y Lee; Danielle M Fitzpatrick; David B Ney; Dina S Zaret; Divya M Chalikonda; Joshua D Mairose; Kashyap Chauhan; Margaret V Szot; Robert B Jones; Rukaiya Bashir-Hamidu; Alan A Kubey Journal: Am J Med Sci Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 3.462
Authors: Alba González-Cebrián; Joan Borràs-Ferrís; Juan Pablo Ordovás-Baines; Marta Hermenegildo-Caudevilla; Mónica Climente-Marti; Sonia Tarazona; Raffaele Vitale; Daniel Palací-López; Jesús Francisco Sierra-Sánchez; Javier Saez de la Fuente; Alberto Ferrer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 3.752