| Literature DB >> 33832097 |
Yuhong Li1, Shijun Tong2, Xueyuan Hu3, Yuanjun Wang2, Ronghua Lv2, Shaozheng Ai2, Ming Hou2, Haining Fan2, Youlu Shen4.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: It is important for patients to maintain a good nutritional status as a health promotion strategy to improve the immune function and thus the prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).The objective of this retrospective study is to analyze the relationships of nutritional status with inflammation levels, protein reserves, baseline immune status, severity, length of hospital stay, and prognosis of COVID-19 patients.A total of 63 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the People's Hospital and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of the Xinzhou District, Wuhan, China, from January 29, 2020 to March 17, 2020. Sixty-three patients were divided into 3 groups according to the guidelines, moderate (n = 22), severe (n = 14), and critical (n = 25), respectively. The differences in the total nutrition risk screening (NRS) score, inflammation level, protein reserve, baseline immune status, length of hospital stay, and prognosis were compared among patients with moderate, severe, and critical COVID-19.Patients with higher NRS scores tend to have more severe COVID-19, higher C-reactive protein and serum procalcitonin levels, higher white blood cell counts, lower lymphocyte counts, and higher mortality rates (P < .05).Nutritional status may be an indirect factor of the severity and prognosis of COVID-19.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33832097 PMCID: PMC8036093 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
General information and length of hospital stay of patients.
| Moderate (n | Severe (n | Critical (n | ||||
| Sex | Male | 12 | 8 | 17 | 16.1 | <.05 |
| Female | 10 | 6 | 8 | |||
| Age (yr) | 47.3 ± 12.6 | 52.5 ± 8.1 | 55.5 ± 14.1 | 3.13 | .05 | |
| Length of hospital stay (d) | 18.8 ± 8.5 | 21.2 ± 5.8 | 23.5 ± 13.4 | 1.19 | .31 |
Comparison of nutrition risk screening scores.
| NRS score | |||
| Moderate | 1.7 ± 0.8 | 111.67 | <.05 |
| Severe | 5.0 ± 1.4 | ||
| Critical | 9.9 ± 2.7 |
NRS = nutrition risk screening.
Comparison of inflammation levels.
| CRP (mg/L) | PCT (ng/mL) | ESR (mm/h) | |
| Moderate | 3.1 ± 1.1 | 0.05 ± 0.03 | 38.5 ± 13.5 |
| Severe | 4.5 ± 2.3 | 0.07 ± 0.03 | 41.6 ± 12.3 |
| Critical | 85.7 ± 53.7 | 0.51 ± 0.08 | 46.2 ± 22.6 |
| 45.5 | 5.7 | 1.5 | |
| <.05 | .006 | .3 |
CRP = C-reactive protein, ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate, PCT = procalcitonin.
Comparison of proteins reserves.
| TP (g/L) | ALB (g/L) | GLB (g/L) | |
| Moderate | 64.3 ± 4.3 | 37.3 ± 3.6 | 26.4 ± 3.4 |
| Severe | 63.1 ± 4.1 | 35.9 ± 4.3 | 26.6 ± 3.4 |
| Critical | 61.7 ± 7.3 | 35.4 ± 6.4 | 26.1 ± 3.4 |
| 1.44 | 0.96 | 0.15 | |
| .24 | .38 | .85 | |
| PLC (×109/L) | −0.085 | 0.510 |
ALB = serum albumin, GLB = globulin, TP = total protein.
Comparison of baseline immune status.
| WBC (×109/L) | LC (×109/L) | PLC (×109/L) | |
| Moderate | 5.1 ± 1.7 | 1.4 ± 0.6 | 201.1 ± 74.1 |
| Severe | 4.4 ± 1.4 | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 154.4 ± 68.1 |
| Critical | 8.4 ± 4.0 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 196.8 ± 73.1 |
| 11.7 | 7.91 | 1.95 | |
| <.05 | <.05 | 1.15 |
WBC = white blood cell.
Comparison of treatment outcomes.
| Moderate | Severe | Critical | |
| Cured | 14 (63.6%) | 7 (50%) | 4 (16%) |
| Improved | 8 (36.4%) | 7 (50%) | 12 (48%) |
| Dead | 0 | 0 | 9 (36%) |
| 21.4 | |||
| <.05 |
Correlation analysis between nutrition risk screening scores and inflammation levels.
| NRS score | ||
| CRP (mg/L) | 0.831 | <.05 |
| PCT (ng/mL) | 0.429 | .001 |
| ESR (mm/h) | 0.115 | .374 |
CRP = C-reactive protein, ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate, NRS = nutrition risk screening, PCT = procalcitonin.
Figure 1Relationship between NRS score and CRP level. The horizontal axis represents the NRS score and the vertical axis represents the CRP level. NRS score is positively correlated with CRP (r = 0.831, P < .05). CRP = C-reactive protein, NRS = nutrition risk screening.
Figure 2Relationship between NRS score and PCT level. The horizontal axis represents the NRS score and the vertical axis represents the PCT level. NRS score is positively correlated with PCT levels (r = 0.429, P < .05). NRS = nutrition risk screening, PCT = procalcitonin.
Relationship between nutrition risk screening score and protein reserve.
| NRS score | ||
| TP (g/L) | −0.263 | <.036 |
| ALB (g/L) | −0.208 | .105 |
| GLB (g/L) | −0.052 | .718 |
ALB = serum albumin, GLB = globulin, NRS = nutrition risk screening, TP = total protein.
Relationship between nutrition risk screening score and baseline immune status.
| NRS score | ||
| WBC (×109/L) | 0.423 | .001 |
| LC (×109/L) | −0.499 | .001 |
| PLC (×109/L) | −0.085 | .510 |
NRS = nutrition risk screening, WBC = white blood cell.
Figure 3Relationship between NRS score and the WBC count. The horizontal axis represents the NRS score and the vertical axis represents the WBC count. NRS score is positively correlated with the WBC count (r = 0.423, P < .05). NRS = nutrition risk screening, WBC = white blood cell.
Figure 4Relationship between NRS score and the lymphocyte count. The horizontal axis represents the NRS score and the vertical axis represents the lymphocyte count. NRS score is negatively correlated with the lymphocyte count (r = −0.499, P < .05). NRS = nutrition risk screening.
Relationship between nutrition risk screening score and the length of hospital stay and prognosis.
| NRS score | ||
| Length of hospital stay (d) | 0.127 | .326 |
| Prognosis∗ | 0.635 | <.05 |
NRS = nutrition risk screening.
Cured (score 1), improved (2), and death (3).