Head-to-head comparison of six warning scores to predict

Intern Emerg Med · Nov 2023

Observational Study

Head-to-head comparison of six warning scores to predict mortality and clinical impairment in COVID-19 patients in emergency department.

The aim was to evaluate the ability of six risk scores (4C, CURB65, SEIMC, mCHOSEN, QuickCSI, and NEWS2) to predict the outcome of patients with COVID-19 during the sixth pandemic wave in Spain. A retrospective observational study was performed to review the electronic medical records in patients ≥ 18 years of age who consulted consecutively in an emergency department with COVID-19 diagnosis throughout 2 months during the sixth pandemic wave. Clinical-epidemiological variables, comorbidities, and their respective outcomes, such as 30-day in-hospital mortality and clinical deterioration risk (a combined outcome considering: mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and/or 30-day in-hospital mortality), were calculated. ⋯ Clinical deterioration risk criteria were present in 10.1% (63 cases), with a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate of 6.2% (39 cases). Comparison of the results showed that score 4C presented the best results for both outcome variables, with areas under the curve for mortality and clinical deterioration risk of 0.931 (95% CI 0.904-0.957) and 0.871 (95% CI 0.833-0.910) (both p < 0.001). The 4C Mortality Score proved to be the best score for predicting mortality or clinical deterioration risk among patients with COVID-19 attended in the emergency department in the following 30 days.

read more… or not…
- Pedro Ángel de Santos Castro, Francisco Martín-Rodríguez, Leyre Teresa Pinilla Arribas, Daniel Zalama Sánchez, Ancor Sanz-García, Tony Giancarlo Vásquez Del Águila, Pablo González Izquierdo, Sara de Santos Sánchez, and Carlos Del Pozo Vegas.
- Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Gerencia Regional de Salud de Castilla Y León (SACYL), Valladolid, Spain.
- Intern Emerg Med. 2023 Nov 1; 18 (8): 238523952385-2395.
AbstractThe aim was to evaluate the ability of six risk scores (4C, CURB65, SEIMC, mCHOSEN, QuickCSI, and NEWS2) to predict the outcome of patients with COVID-19 during the sixth pandemic wave in Spain. A retrospective observational study was performed to review the electronic medical records in patients ≥ 18 years of age who consulted consecutively in an emergency department with COVID-19 diagnosis throughout 2 months during the sixth pandemic wave. Clinical-epidemiological variables, comorbidities, and their respective outcomes, such as 30-day in-hospital mortality and clinical deterioration risk (a combined outcome considering: mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and/or 30-day in-hospital mortality), were calculated. The area under the curve for each risk score was calculated, and the resulting curves were compared by the Delong test, concluding with a decision curve analysis. A total of 626 patients (median age 79 years; 49.8% female) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two hundred and ninety-three patients (46.8%) had two or more comorbidities. Clinical deterioration risk criteria were present in 10.1% (63 cases), with a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate of 6.2% (39 cases). Comparison of the results showed that score 4C presented the best results for both outcome variables, with areas under the curve for mortality and clinical deterioration risk of 0.931 (95% CI 0.904-0.957) and 0.871 (95% CI 0.833-0.910) (both p < 0.001). The 4C Mortality Score proved to be the best score for predicting mortality or clinical deterioration risk among patients with COVID-19 attended in the emergency department in the following 30 days.© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (SIMI).

Pubmed Copy Citation Plaintext

Add institutional full text...
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?

300 characters remaining

help

You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes

Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.

Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.

Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.

Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)

Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")

For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.

Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..
hide…

Head-to-head comparison of six warning scores to predict mortality and clinical impairment in COVID-19 patients in emergency department.

Notes

300 characters remaining

help

You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.