Dataset Information

Critically Ill vs. Non-Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia: Clinical Features, Laboratory Findings, and Prediction.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical features and laboratory findings of patients with and without critical COVID-19 pneumonia and identify predictors for the critical form of the disease.

Methods

Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data of 63 COVID-19 pneumonia patients were retrospectively reviewed. Laboratory parameters were also collected within 3-5 days, 7-9 days, and 11-14 days of hospitalization. Outcomes were followed up until March 12, 2020.

Results

Twenty-two patients developed critically ill pneumonia; one of them died. Upon admission, older patients with critical illness were more likely to report cough and dyspnoea with higher respiration rates and had a greater possibility of abnormal laboratory parameters than patients without critical illness. When compared with the non-critically ill patients, patients with serious illness had a lower discharge rate and longer hospital stays, with a trend towards higher mortality. The interleukin-6 level in patients upon hospital admission was important in predicting disease severity and was associated with the length of hospitalization.

Conclusions

Many differences in clinical features and laboratory findings were observed between patients exhibiting non-critically ill and critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia. Non-critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia also needs aggressive treatments. Interleukin-6 was a superior predictor of disease severity.

SUBMITTER: Hong W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8313893 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Micronutrient deficiencies can develop in critically ill patients, arising from factors such as decreased intake, increased losses, drug interactions, and hypermetabolism. These deficiencies may compromise important immune functions, with potential implications for patient outcomes. Alternatively, micronutrient blood levels may become low due to inflammation-driven redistribution rather than consumption. This explorative pilot study investigates blood micronutrient concentrations during the first three weeks of ICU stay in critically ill COVID-19 patients and evaluates the impact of additional micronutrient administration. Moreover, associations between inflammation, disease severity, and micronutrient status were explored. We measured weekly concentrations of vitamins A, B6, D, and E; iron; zinc; copper; selenium; and CRP as a marker of inflammation state and the SOFA score indicating disease severity in 20 critically ill COVID-19 patients during three weeks of ICU stay. Half of the patients received additional (intravenous) micronutrient administration. Data were analyzed with linear mixed models and Pearson's correlation coefficient. High deficiency rates of vitamins A, B6, and D; zinc; and selenium (50-100%) were found at ICU admission, along with low iron status. After three weeks, vitamins B6 and D deficiencies persisted, and iron status remained low. Plasma levels of vitamins A and E, zinc, and selenium improved. No significant differences in micronutrient levels were found between patient groups. Negative correlations were identified between the CRP level and levels of vitamins A and E, iron, transferrin, zinc, and selenium. SOFA scores negatively correlated with vitamin D and selenium levels. Our findings reveal high micronutrient deficiency rates at ICU admission. Additional micronutrient administration did not enhance levels or expedite their increase. Spontaneous increases in vitamins A and E, zinc, and selenium levels were associated with inflammation resolution, suggesting that observed low levels may be attributed, at least in part, to redistribution rather than true deficiencies.

Project description:Coronavirus disease-2019, also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was a disaster in 2020. Accurate and early diagnosis of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is still essential for health policymaking. Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been performed as the operational gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis. We aimed to design and implement a reliable COVID-19 diagnosis method to provide the risk of infection using demographics, symptoms and signs, blood markers, and family history of diseases to have excellent agreement with the results obtained by the RT-PCR and CT-scan. Our study primarily used sample data from a 1-year hospital-based prospective COVID-19 open-cohort, the Khorshid COVID Cohort (KCC) study. A sample of 634 patients with COVID-19 and 118 patients with pneumonia with similar characteristics whose RT-PCR and chest CT scan were negative (as the control group) (dataset 1) was used to design the system and for internal validation. Two other online datasets, namely, some symptoms (dataset 2) and blood tests (dataset 3), were also analyzed. A combination of one-hot encoding, stability feature selection, over-sampling, and an ensemble classifier was used. Ten-fold stratified cross-validation was performed. In addition to gender and symptom duration, signs and symptoms, blood biomarkers, and comorbidities were selected. Performance indices of the cross-validated confusion matrix for dataset 1 were as follows: sensitivity of 96% [confidence interval, CI, 95%: 94-98], specificity of 95% [90-99], positive predictive value (PPV) of 99% [98-100], negative predictive value (NPV) of 82% [76-89], diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 496 [198-1,245], area under the ROC (AUC) of 0.96 [0.94-0.97], Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of 0.87 [0.85-0.88], accuracy of 96% [94-98], and Cohen's Kappa of 0.86 [0.81-0.91]. The proposed algorithm showed excellent diagnosis accuracy and class-labeling agreement, and fair discriminant power. The AUC on the datasets 2 and 3 was 0.97 [0.96-0.98] and 0.92 [0.91-0.94], respectively. The most important feature was white blood cell count, shortness of breath, and C-reactive protein for datasets 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The proposed algorithm is, thus, a promising COVID-19 diagnosis method, which could be an amendment to simple blood tests and screening of symptoms. However, the RT-PCR and chest CT-scan, performed as the gold standard, are not 100% accurate.