Virol J . Pneumonia scoring systems for severe COVID-19: which one is better

[tetano]

Virol J


. 2021 Feb 10;18(1):33.
doi: 10.1186/s12985-021-01502-6.
Pneumonia scoring systems for severe COVID-19: which one is better


PengFei Cheng ^{# 1} , Hao Wu ^{# 1} , JunZhe Yang ^{# 1} , XiaoYang Song ¹ , MengDa Xu ¹ , BiXi Li ¹ , JunJun Zhang ² , MingZhe Qin ¹ , Cheng Zhou ³ , Xiang Zhou ⁴



Affiliations

• PMID: 33568204
• DOI: 10.1186/s12985-021-01502-6

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the predictive significance of different pneumonia scoring systems in clinical severity and mortality risk of patients with severe novel coronavirus pneumonia.
Materials and methods: A total of 53 cases of severe novel coronavirus pneumonia were confirmed. The APACHE II, MuLBSTA and CURB-65 scores of different treatment methods were calculated, and the predictive power of each score on clinical respiratory support treatment and mortality risk was compared.
Results: The APACHE II score showed the largest area under ROC curve in both noninvasive and invasive respiratory support treatment assessments, which is significantly different from that of CURB-65. Further, the MuLBSTA score had the largest area under ROC curve in terms of death risk assessment, which is also significantly different from that of CURB-65; however, no difference was noted with the APACHE II score.
Conclusion: For patients with COVID, the APACHE II score is an effective predictor of the disease severity and mortality risk. Further, the MuLBSTA score is a good predictor only in terms of mortality risk.

Keywords: APACHE II score; CURB-65 score; Disease assessment; MuLBSTA score; Novel coronavirus pneumonia.