• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Eur J Intern Med . External validation of risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized due to coronavirus disease 2019

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Eur J Intern Med


. 2022 Jun 8;S0953-6205(22)00217-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.06.005. Online ahead of print.
External validation of risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized due to coronavirus disease 2019


Shermarke Hassan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Chava L Ramspek[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Barbara Ferrari[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Merel van Diepen[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Raffaella Rossio[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Rachel Knevel[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Vincenzo la Mura[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Andrea Artoni[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Ida Martinelli[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Alessandra Bandera[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Alessandro Nobili[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Andrea Gori[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Francesco Blasi[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Ciro Canetta[SUP] 10 [/SUP], Nicola Montano[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Frits R Rosendaal[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Flora Peyvandi[SUP] 12 [/SUP], LUMC‐COVID‐19 Research Group, COVID-19 Network working group



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents an urgent threat to global health. Prediction models that accurately estimate mortality risk in hospitalized patients could assist medical staff in treatment and allocating limited resources.
Aims: To externally validate two promising previously published risk scores that predict in-hospital mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Methods: Two prospective cohorts were available; a cohort of 1028 patients admitted to one of nine hospitals in Lombardy, Italy (the Lombardy cohort) and a cohort of 432 patients admitted to a hospital in Leiden, the Netherlands (the Leiden cohort). The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. All patients were adult and tested COVID-19 PCR-positive. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed.
Results: The C-statistic of the 4C mortality score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.85, 95CI: 0.82-0.89) and in the Leiden cohort (0.87, 95CI: 0.80-0.94). Model calibration was acceptable in the Lombardy cohort but poor in the Leiden cohort due to the model systematically overpredicting the mortality risk for all patients. The C-statistic of the CURB-65 score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.80, 95CI: 0.75-0.85) and in the Leiden cohort (0.82, 95CI: 0.76-0.88). The mortality rate in the CURB-65 development cohort was much lower than the mortality rate in the Lombardy cohort. A similar but less pronounced trend was found for patients in the Leiden cohort.
Conclusion: Although performances did not differ greatly, the 4C mortality score showed the best performance. However, because of quickly changing circumstances, model recalibration may be necessary before using the 4C mortality score.

Keywords: COVID-19; Mortality; Prediction; SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom