Dataset Information

Prediction of COVID-19-related Mortality and 30-Day and 60-Day Survival Probabilities Using a Nomogram.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prediction of mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a key to improving the clinical outcomes, considering that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the collapse of healthcare systems in many regions worldwide. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with COVID-19 mortality and to develop a nomogram for predicting mortality using clinical parameters and underlying diseases.

Methods

This study was performed in 5,626 patients with confirmed COVID-19 between February 1 and April 30, 2020 in South Korea. A Cox proportional hazards model and logistic regression model were used to construct a nomogram for predicting 30-day and 60-day survival probabilities and overall mortality, respectively in the train set. Calibration and discrimination were performed to validate the nomograms in the test set.

Results

Age ≥ 70 years, male, presence of fever and dyspnea at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and diabetes mellitus, cancer, or dementia as underling diseases were significantly related to 30-day and 60-day survival and mortality in COVID-19 patients. The nomogram showed good calibration for survival probabilities and mortality. In the train set, the areas under the curve (AUCs) for 30-day and 60-day survival was 0.914 and 0.954, respectively; the AUC for mortality of 0.959. In the test set, AUCs for 30-day and 60-day survival was 0.876 and 0.660, respectively, and that for mortality was 0.926. The online calculators can be found at https://koreastat.shinyapps.io/RiskofCOVID19/.

Conclusion

The prediction model could accurately predict COVID-19-related mortality; thus, it would be helpful for identifying the risk of mortality and establishing medical policies during the pandemic to improve the clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Moon HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8422041 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC) reports 30-day survival as a quality indicator for Norwegian hospitals. The indicators have been published annually since 2011 on the website of the Norwegian Directorate of Health (www.helsenorge.no), as part of the Norwegian Quality Indicator System authorized by the Ministry of Health. Openness regarding calculation of quality indicators is important, as it provides the opportunity to critically review and discuss the method. The purpose of this article is to describe the data collection, data pre-processing, and data analyses, as carried out by NOKC, for the calculation of 30-day risk-adjusted survival probability as a quality indicator.Methods and findingsThree diagnosis-specific 30-day survival indicators (first time acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture) are estimated based on all-cause deaths, occurring in-hospital or out-of-hospital, within 30 days counting from the first day of hospitalization. Furthermore, a hospital-wide (i.e. overall) 30-day survival indicator is calculated. Patient administrative data from all Norwegian hospitals and information from the Norwegian Population Register are retrieved annually, and linked to datasets for previous years. The outcome (alive/death within 30 days) is attributed to every hospital by the fraction of time spent in each hospital. A logistic regression followed by a hierarchical Bayesian analysis is used for the estimation of risk-adjusted survival probabilities. A multiple testing procedure with a false discovery rate of 5% is used to identify hospitals, hospital trusts and regional health authorities with significantly higher/lower survival than the reference. In addition, estimated risk-adjusted survival probabilities are published per hospital, hospital trust and regional health authority. The variation in risk-adjusted survival probabilities across hospitals for AMI shows a decreasing trend over time: estimated survival probabilities for AMI in 2011 varied from 80.6% (in the hospital with lowest estimated survival) to 91.7% (in the hospital with highest estimated survival), whereas it ranged from 83.8% to 91.2% in 2013.ConclusionsSince 2011, several hospitals and hospital trusts have initiated quality improvement projects, and some of the hospitals have improved the survival over these years. Public reporting of survival/mortality indicators are increasingly being used as quality measures of health care systems. Openness regarding the methods used to calculate the indicators are important, as it provides the opportunity of critically reviewing and discussing the methods in the literature. In this way, the methods employed for establishing the indicators may be improved.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative mortality after colorectal cancer surgery varies across hospitals and countries. The aim of this study was to test the Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) models as predictors of 30-day mortality in an Australian cohort.MethodsData from patients who underwent surgery in six hospitals between 1996 and 2015 (CRC data set) were reviewed to test ACPGBI models, and patients from 79 hospitals in the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit between 2007 and 2016 (BCCA data set) were analysed to validate model performance. Recalibrated models based on ACPGBI risk models were developed, tested and validated on a data set of Australasian patients.ResultsOf 18 752 patients observed during the study, 6727 (CRC data set) and 3814 (BCCA data set) were analysed. The 30-day mortality rate was 1·1 and 3·5 per cent in the CRC and BCCA data sets respectively. Both the original and revised ACPGBI models overestimated 30-day mortality for the CRC data set (observed to expected (O/E) ratio 0·17 and 0·21 respectively). Their ability to correctly predict mortality risk was poor (P < 0·001, Hosmer-Lemeshow test); however, the area under the curve for both models was 0·88 (95 per cent c.i. 0·85 to 0·92) showing good discriminatory power to classify 30-day mortality. The recalibrated original model performed well for calibration and discrimination, whereas the recalibrated revised model performed well for discrimination but not for calibration. Risk prediction was good for both recalibrated models. On external validation using the BCCA data set, the recalibrated models underestimated mortality risk (O/E ratio 3·06 and 2·98 respectively), whereas both original and revised ACPGBI models overestimated the risk (O/E ratio 0·48 and 0·69). All models showed similar good discrimination.ConclusionThe original and revised ACPGBI models overpredicted risk of 30-day mortality. The new Australasian calibrated ACPGBI model needs to be tested further in clinical practice.

Project description:IntroductionWith the spread of COVID-19 epidemic, health plans must be adapted continuously. There is an urgent need to define the best care courses of patients with COVID-19, especially in intensive care units (ICUs), according to their individualised benefit/risk ratio. Since older age is associated with poorer short-term and long-term outcomes, prediction models are needed, that may assist clinicians in their ICU admission decision. Senior-COVID-Rea was designed to evaluate, in patients over 60 years old admitted in ICU for severe COVID-19 disease, the impact of age and geriatric and paraclinical parameters on their mortality 30 days after ICU admission.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre survey protocol to be conducted in seven hospitals of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, France. All patients over 60 years old admitted in ICU for severe COVID-19 infection (or their legally acceptable representative) will be proposed to enter the study and to fill in a questionnaire regarding their functional and nutritional parameters 1 month before COVID-19 infection. Paraclinical parameters at ICU admission will be collected: lymphocytes and neutrophils counts, high-fluorescent lymphoid cells and immature granulocytes percentages (Sysmex data), D-dimers, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), creatinine, CT scan for lung extension rate as well as clinical resuscitation scores, and the delay between the first signs of infection and ICU admission. The primary outcome will be the overall survival at day 30 post-ICU admission. The analysis of factors predicting mortality at day 30 will be carried out using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. Multivariate logistic regression will consider up to 15 factors.The ambition of this trial, which takes into account the different approaches of geriatric vulnerability, is to define the respective abilities of different operational criteria of frailty to predict patients' outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was ethically approved. The results of the primary and secondary objectives will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04422340.