The prognostic utility of GRACE risk score in predictive cardiovascular event rate in STEMI patients with successful fibrinolysis and delay intervention in non PCI-capable hospital: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesSeveral physiological abnormalities that develop during COVID-19 are associated with increased mortality. In the present study, we aimed to develop a clinical risk score to predict the in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients, based on a set of variables available soon after the hospitalisation triage.SettingRetrospective cohort study of 516 patients consecutively admitted for COVID-19 to two Italian tertiary hospitals located in Northern and Central Italy were collected from 22 February 2020 (date of first admission) to 10 April 2020.ParticipantsConsecutive patients≥18 years admitted for COVID-19.Main outcome measuresSimple clinical and laboratory findings readily available after triage were compared by patients’ survival status (‘dead’ vs ‘alive’), with the objective of identifying baseline variables associated with mortality. These were used to build a COVID-19 in-hospital mortality risk score (COVID-19MRS).ResultsMean age was 67±13 years (mean±SD), and 66.9% were male. Using Cox regression analysis, tertiles of increasing age (≥75, upper vs <62 years, lower: HR 7.92; p<0.001) and number of chronic diseases (≥4 vs 0–1: HR 2.09; p=0.007), respiratory rate (HR 1.04 per unit increase; p=0.001), PaO2/FiO2 (HR 0.995 per unit increase; p<0.001), serum creatinine (HR 1.34 per unit increase; p<0.001) and platelet count (HR 0.995 per unit increase; p=0.001) were predictors of mortality. All six predictors were used to build the COVID-19MRS (Area Under the Curve 0.90, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93), which proved to be highly accurate in stratifying patients at low, intermediate and high risk of in-hospital death (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe COVID-19MRS is a rapid, operator-independent and inexpensive clinical tool that objectively predicts mortality in patients with COVID-19. The score could be helpful from triage to guide earlier assignment of COVID-19 patients to the most appropriate level of care.

Download Full-text

False-negative RT-PCR for COVID-19 and a diagnostic risk score: a retrospective cohort study among patients admitted to hospital

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047110 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e047110 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ankur Gupta-Wright ◽

Colin Kenneth Macleod ◽

Jessica Barrett ◽

Sarah Ann Filson ◽

Tumena Corrah ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cohort Study ◽

Risk Score ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

External Validation ◽

False Negative ◽

Early Warning Score ◽

Risk Scores ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Internal Validation

ObjectiveTo describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 and false-negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), and develop and internally validate a diagnostic risk score to predict risk of COVID-19 (including RT-PCR-negative COVID-19) among medical admissions.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTwo hospitals within an acute NHS Trust in London, UK.ParticipantsAll patients admitted to medical wards between 2 March and 3 May 2020.OutcomesMain outcomes were diagnosis of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and mortality during hospital admission. For the diagnostic risk score, we report discrimination, calibration and diagnostic accuracy of the model and simplified risk score and internal validation.Results4008 patients were admitted between 2 March and 3 May 2020. 1792 patients (44.8%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 1391 were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive and 283 had only negative RT-PCRs. Compared with a clinical reference standard, sensitivity of RT-PCR in hospital patients was 83.1% (95% CI 81.2%–84.8%). Broadly, patients with false-negative RT-PCR COVID-19 and those confirmed by positive PCR had similar demographic and clinical characteristics but lower risk of intensive care unit admission and lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27–0.61). A simple diagnostic risk score comprising of age, sex, ethnicity, cough, fever or shortness of breath, National Early Warning Score 2, C reactive protein and chest radiograph appearance had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver–operator curve 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85), good calibration and was internally validated.ConclusionRT-PCR-negative COVID-19 is common and is associated with lower mortality despite similar presentation. Diagnostic risk scores could potentially help triage patients requiring admission but need external validation.

Download Full-text

External validation of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score and comparison with the Hospital-patient One-year Mortality Risk Score to predict outcomes in elderly hospitalised patients: a retrospective cohort study

BMJ Quality & Safety ◽

10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008661 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 28 (4) ◽

pp. 284-288 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Finlay McAlister ◽

Carl van Walraven

Keyword(s):

Cohort Study ◽

Length Of Stay ◽

Risk Score ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Hospital Patient ◽

Prolonged Length ◽

C Statistic ◽

Hospitalised Patients ◽

One Year

ObjectiveFrailty is an important prognostic factor in hospitalised patients but typically requires face-to-face assessment by trained observers to detect. Thus, frail patients are not readily apparent from a systems perspective for those interested in implementing quality improvement measures to optimise their outcomes. This study was designed to externally validate and compare two recently described tools using administrative data as potential markers for frailty: the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) and the Hospital-patient One-year Mortality Risk (HOMR) Score.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingOntario, Canada.ParticipantsAll patients over 75 with at least one urgent non-psychiatric hospitalisation between 2004 and 2010.Main outcome measuresProlonged hospital length of stay (>10 days), 30-day mortality after admission and 30-day postdischarge rates of urgent readmission or emergency department (ED) visits.ResultsIn 452 785 patients (25.9% with intermediate or high-risk HFRS), increased HFRS was associated with higher Charlson scores, older age and decreased likelihood of baseline independence. Patients with high or intermediate HFRS had significantly increased risks of prolonged hospitalisation (70.0% (OR 8.64, 95% CI 8.30 to 8.99) or 49.7% (OR 3.66, 95% CI 3.60 to 3.71) vs 21.3% in low-risk HFRS group) and 30-day mortality (15.5% (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.33) or 16.8% (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.41) vs 12.7% in low-risk), but decreased risks of 30-day readmission (10.0% (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.79) and 11.2% (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86) vs 13.1%) or ED visit (7.3% (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.45) and 11.1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.45) vs 16.0%). Although only loosely associated (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.265, p<0.0001), both the HFRS and HOMR Score were independently associated with each outcome—HFRS was more strongly associated with prolonged length of stay (C-statistic 0.71) and HOMR Score was more strongly associated with 30-day mortality (C-statistic 0.71). Both poorly predicted 30-day readmissions (C-statistics 0.52 for HFRS and 0.54 for HOMR Score).ConclusionsThe HFRS best identified hospitalised older patients at higher risk of prolonged length of stay and the HOMR score better predicted 30-day mortality. However, neither score was suitable for predicting risk of readmission or ED visit in the 30 days after discharge. Thus, a single score is inadequate to prognosticate for all outcomes associated with frailty.

Download Full-text