Background: The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) has been described as a simple risk-stratified tool for several diseases. We explored the predictive role of the PNI on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity.Methods: A total of 101 patients with COVID-19 were included in this retrospective study from January 2020 to March 2020. They were divided into two groups according to COVID-19 severity: non-critical (n = 56) and critical (n = 45). The PNI was calculated upon hospital admission: 10 × serum albumin (g/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (/mm3). Critical COVID-19 was defined as having one of the following features: respiratory failure necessitating mechanical ventilation; shock; organ dysfunction necessitating admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). The correlation between the PNI with COVID-19 severity was analyzed.Results: The PNI was significantly lower in critically ill than that in non-critically ill patients (P < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic curve indicated that the PNI was a good discrimination factor for identifying COVID-19 severity (P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed the PNI to be an independent risk factor for critical illness due to COVID-19 (P = 0.002).Conclusions: The PNI is a valuable biomarker that could be used to discriminate COVID-19 severity.
BackgroundLung ultrasound and echocardiography are mainly applied in critical care and emergency medicine. However, the diagnostic value of cardiopulmonary ultrasound in elderly patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still unclear.MethodsConsecutive patients admitted to ICU with the diagnosis of suspected ARDS based on clinical grounds were enrolled. Cardiopulmonary ultrasound was performed as part of monitoring on day 1, day 2 and day 3. On each day a bedside ultrasound was performed to examine the lungs and calculate the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF). On day 3, a thoracic CT was performed on each patient as gold standard for ARDS imaging diagnosis. According to the results from CT scan, patients were grouped into ARDS group or Non-ARDS group. The relation between the cardiopulmonary ultrasound results on each day and the results of CT scan was analyzed.ResultsFifty one consecutive patients aged from 73 to 97 years old were enrolled. Based on CT criteria, 33 patients were classified into the ARDS group, while 18 patients were included in non-ARDS group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline characteristics, including gender, age, underlying disease, comorbidities, APACHE II score, SOFA score, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P > 0.05). Lung ultrasound (LUS) examination results were consistent with the CT scan results in diagnosis of pulmonary lesions. The Kappa values were 0.55, 0.74 and 0.82 on day 1, day 2 and day 3, respectively. The ROC analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and area under curve of ROC (AUROC) for lung ultrasound in diagnose ARDS were 0.788,0.778,0.783;0.909,0.833,0.871;0.970,0.833,0.902 on day 1, day 2 and day 3, respectively. However, cardiopulmonary ultrasound performed better in diagnosing ARDS in elderly patients. The sensitivity, specificity and AUROC were 0.879,0.889,0.924;0.939,0.889,0.961;and 0.970,0.833,0.956 on day 1, day 2 and day 3, respectively. The combined performances of cardiopulmonary ultrasound, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and PaO2/FiO2 ratio improved the specificity of the diagnosis of ARDS in elderly patients.ConclusionsLUS examination results were consistent with the CT scan results in diagnosis of pulmonary lesions. Cardiopulmonary ultrasound has a greater diagnostic accuracy in elderly patients with ARDS, compared with LUS alone. The combined performances of cardiopulmonary ultrasound, NT-proBNP, and PaO2/FiO2 increased the specificity of the diagnosis of ARDS in elderly patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.