| Literature DB >> 35281240 |
Fangfang Shen1, Chunjuan Dong1, Tongqiang Zhang1, Changjiang Yu1, Kun Jiang1, Yongsheng Xu1, Jing Ning1.
Abstract
Background: In children, refractory Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (RMPP) may result in severe complications and high medical costs. There is research on a simple and easy-to-use nomogram for early prediction and timely treatment of RMPP.Entities:
Keywords: CRP; D-dimer; LDH; Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia; nomogram; refractory
Year: 2022 PMID: 35281240 PMCID: PMC8916609 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.813614
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pediatr ISSN: 2296-2360 Impact factor: 3.418
Clinical characteristics of GMPP and RMPP patients.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (male) [ | 55 (35.2%) | 70 (49.0%) | 0.023 |
| Age (years) | 6.80 ± 2.30 | 7.20 ± 2.20 | 0.126 |
| Duration of fever (days) | 12.37 ± 3.42 | 8.16 ± 2.34 | <0.001 |
| Length of stay in hospital (days) | 11.24 ± 2.34 | 7.62 ± 1.98 | <0.001 |
| Clinical symptoms | |||
| Cough [ | 156 (100%) | 143 (100%) | 1.000 |
| High fever [ | 156 (100%) | 114 (79.7%) | 1.000 |
| Wheezing [ | 10 (0.06%) | 12 (0.08%) | 0.342 |
| Extrapulmonary complications [ | 62 (39.7%) | 20 (13.99%) | <0.001 |
| Pulmonary signs | |||
| Lung rale [ | 93 (59.6%) | 100 (69.9%) | 0.081 |
| Decreased breath sound [ | 54 (34.6%) | 26 (17.44) | <0.001 |
Laboratory data of GMPP and RMPP.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 156 | 143 | |
| WBC (×109/L) | 6.57 [5.03, 8.23] | 6.89 [6.08, 9.12] | 0.632 |
| N% | 73.10 [68.97, 76.35] | 56.60 [52.70, 59.25] | <0.001 |
| PLT (×109/L) | 529.30 [509.95, 547.03] | 533.80 [518.50, 547.25] | 0.274 |
| CRP (mg/L) | 22.48 [17.41, 28.59] | 18.55 [16.20, 25.36] | <0.001 |
| LDH (U/L) | 439.69 [391.72, 497.88] | 392.33 [329.01, 446.97] | <0.001 |
| IL-6 (pg/ml) | 44.8[27.1–78.2] | 25.2[14.1–38.4] | <0.001 |
| FER (ng/ml) | 233.10 [216.05, 252.47] | 232.60 [210.10, 243.25] | 0.072 |
| ESR (mm/h) | 13.90 [12.15, 16.50] | 14.50 [12.70, 16.75] | 0.388 |
| D-dimer (mg/L) | 3.75 [3.48, 3.95] | 3.21 [3.00, 3.62] | <0.001 |
| Pa (g/L) | 0.15 [0.14, 0.16] | 0.16 [0.14, 0.17] | 0.063 |
| PCT (ng/ml) | 0.15 [0.13, 0.17] | 0.15 [0.12, 0.18] | 0.874 |
WBC, White blood cell; N%, neutrophil ratio; PLT, platelet counts; CRP, C-reactive protein; LDH, lactic dehydrogenase; IL-6, interleukin-6; FER, ferritin; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; D-dimer; Pa, prealbumin; PCT, procalcitonin.
Radiological data and fiberoptic bronchoscopy data of GMPP and RMPP patients.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atelectasis | 54 | 74 | 0.091 |
| Unilateral pulmonary consolidation >2/3 | 90 | 124 | 0.002 |
| Pulmonary necrosis | 6 | 9 | 0.509 |
| Pleural effusion | 38 | 46 | 0.571 |
| Plastic bronchitis | 12 | 30 | 0.008 |
| Pulmonary embolism | 0 | 1 | 0.965 |
Predictive factors for RMPP by stepwise regression.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| D-dimer | 4.262 | 70.940 (23.861–210.9044) | |
| CRP | 0.073 | 1.075 (1.020–1.133) | |
| LDH | 0.015 | 1.015 (1.010–1.020) | |
| Constant | −22.876 | NA | NA |
CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable; OR, odds ratio.
Figure 1Construct a nomogram of risk for RMPP children. A nomogram predicting the risk of RMPP was established based on the three independent risk factors (CRP level, D-dimer level, and LDH level). You can specify points for each variable by drawing a line up from the corresponding variable to the point line. The sum of the points plotted on the Total Points line and the risk value corresponding to the RMPP risk score represented the specific risk at which the RMPP occurred.
Figure 2Calibration curves of the nomogram in training cohorts (A) and validation cohorts (B). The calibration curve predicts the risk of RMPP in the queue. The x-axis represented the projected risk of RMPP. The y-axis represented the RMPP of the actual diagnosis. The diagonal dotted line represented the perfect prediction of the ideal model. The solid line represented the performance of the line chart, which is closer to the diagonal dashed line to indicate a better prediction.
Figure 3Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the nomograms in training and validation cohorts. The area under the ROC curve in the training cohorts and the validation cohorts was 0.881 (95% CI: 0.843–0.918) and 0.777 (95% CI: 0.661–0.893), respectively.