STUDY OF PNEUMONIA SEVERITY INDEX AND CURB-65 IN COMMUNITY ACQUIRED PNEUMONIA IN INDUSTRIAL SET-UP
Main Article Content
Keywords
PSI, CURB-65, Community Acquired Pneumonia
Abstract
Background
This study was conducted to determine if the pneumonia severity index and CURB-65 are applicable to patients who have community-acquired pneumonia and to investigate the prognostic usefulness of these markers (need for ICU admission and death) in these individuals.
Methods
This was a hospital-based prospective observational study conducted among eighty patients who were diagnosed to be having community-acquired pneumonia admitted to Hindustan Aeronautics Hospital, over a period of 18 months after obtaining clearance from the institutional ethics committee and written informed consent from the study participants.
Results
In our study, we observed a significant association between age, ventilator support, inotropes, ICU stay, and mortality with increasing scores in both PSI and CURB-65 scoring systems, demonstrating a high degree of sensitivity and specificity. Whereas the PSI score has a higher prediction for ICU admission and ventilator requirement in CAP patients, the CURB score has a higher prediction for mortality in CAP patients. The ROC curve for ICU admitted patients, patients who received ventilator support, and mortality among CAP subjects was higher for PSI score than CURB-65, that is, PSI score has higher sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve for mortality for all the three aforementioned parameters in CAP patients.
Conclusion
Both our study's and the earlier research's mortality rates in the various risk classes demonstrated that, in both the PSI and CURB-65 risk classes, mortality rates increased steadily as risk scores increased. In predicting ICU admission, ventilator support, inotropic support, and mortality, both PSI and CURB65 have good specificity, with PSI having better sensitivity and specificity than CURB65.
References
[2] Dey AB, Nagarkar KM, Kumar V. Clinical presentation and predictors of outcome in adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Natl Med-India 1997;104:169-72.
[3] Metlay JP, Fine MJ. Testing strategies in the initial management of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Intern Med 2003;138(2):109-18.
[4] Moran GJ, Talan D. Pneumonia. In: Marx JA, Hockberger RS, Walls RM, eds. Rosen's emergency medicine concepts and clinical practice 7th edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier 2009:627-938.
[5] Seaton A, Seaton D. Leitch AG. Crofton & Douglas’s Respiratory Diseases. 5th edn. Blackwell Science 2000:356-429.
[6] Stevens RM, Teres D, Skillman JJ, Feingold DS. Pneumonia in an intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med 1974;134:106-11.
[7] Cassiere HA, Niederman MS. New etiopathogenic concepts of ventilator associated pneumonia. Semin Respir Infect 1996;11:13-23.
[8] Mac farlane JT, Finch RG, Ward MJ, Macrae AD. Hospital study of adult community acquired pneumonia. Lancet 1982;2(8292):255-8.
[9] Dhawan A, Narang A, Singhi S. Hyponatraemia and the inappropriate ADH syndrome in pneumonia. Annuals of Tropical Paediatrics 1992;12:455-62.
[10] Gong MNB, Thompson T, Williams P, Pothier L, Boyee PD, Christiani DC. Clinical predictors of and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome: Potential role of red cell transfusion. Crit Care Med 2005;33(6):1191-8.
[11] Diwakar TN, Ravish KS, Hussain GZ, Kulkarni A. Comparative study of Pneumonia Severity Index and CURB65 in assesing the severity of Community Acquired Pneumonia. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences 2013;2(8):836-51.
[12] Lim WS, van der Erden MM, Laing R, Boersma WG, Karalus N, Town GI, et al. Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax 2003;58:377-82.
[13] British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee. BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults. Thorax 2001;56(Suppl 4):IV1-64.
[14] Ewig S, Kleinfeld T, Bauer T, Seifert K, Schäfer H, Goke N. Comparative validation of prognostic rules for community acquired pneumonia in an elderly population. Eur Respir J 1999;14(2):370-5.
[15] Capelastegui A, Espana PP, Quintana JM, Areitio I, Gorordo I, Egurrola M, et al. Validation of a predictive rule for the management of community-acquired pneumonia. Eur Respir J 2006;27(1):151-7.
[16] Aujesky D, Auble TE, Yealy DM, Stone RA, Obrosky DS, Meehan TP, et al. Prospective validation of three validated prediction rules for prognosis in community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Med 2005;118(4):384-92.
[17] Man SY, Lee N, Ip M, Antonio GE, Chau SS, Mak P, et al. Prospective comparison of three predictive rules for assessing severity of community- acquired pneumonia in Hong Kong. Thorax 2007;62(4):348-53.
[18] Ewig S, de Roux A, Garcia E, Mensa J, Niederman M, Torres A. Validation of predictive rules and indices of severity for community-acquired pneumonia. Thorax 2004;59(5):421-7.
[19] Carmen G, Tami J, Kenneth R, Kelly M, Carla W, Scott E. Predicting pneumonia mortality using CURB‐65, PSI, and patient characteristics in patients presenting to the emergency department of a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer Med 2014;3(4):962-70.
[20] Agarwal SK, Meena M, Misra AK, Meena LP, Singh M. A study to compare prognostic utility of procalcitonin with existing biomarkers (CRP and TLC) and clinical risk scores (PSI and CURB 65) in community acquired pneumonia. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2015;5(1):28-32.
[21] Fernandes L, Arora AS, Mesquita AM. Role of semi-quantitative serum procalcitonin in assessing prognosis of community acquired bacterial pneumonia compared to PORT PSI, CURB-65 and CRB-65. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR 2015;9(7):OC01.
[22] Fang WF, Yang KY, Wu CL, Yu CJ, Chen CW, Tu CY, et al. Application and comparison of scoring indices to predict outcomes in patients with healthcare associated pneumonia. Crit Care 2011;15:R32.