ContactISSN:e-ISSN: 2757-976X
Author Sign-inReviewer Sign-inRegister
TürkçeEnglish
Home
About Journal
Copyright NoticeOpen Access PolicyAim and ScopePrinciples of ArbitrationReviewer and Editor GuideFee PolicyEthical Principles and Publication PolicyArchiving PolicyIndexing
Information For AuthorsEditorial BoardSend ArticleLatest IssueArchiveContact Us

The Effect Of Laboratory Parameters And Prognostıc Scores On Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation In Coronavirus Disease-19 Patients In Intensıve Care Unit

LEYLA ÖZTÜRK SÖNMEZ,HÜLYA VATANSEV,MUSTAFA KÜRŞAT AYRANCI,BURAK KATİPOĞLU,Lukasz Szarpak,TOGAY EVRİN

  • LEYLA ÖZTÜRK SÖNMEZ: NECMETTİN ERBAKAN UNİVERSİTY
  • MUSTAFA KÜRŞAT AYRANCI: NECMETTİN ERBAKAN UNİVERSİTY
  • BURAK KATİPOĞLU: UFUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
  • Lukasz Szarpak: Maria Sklodowska-Curie Medical Academy Medical Faculty
  • TOGAY EVRİN: UFUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ
  •  Year : 2023
  •  Vol : 3
  •  Issue : 2
  •  Page : 54-60
ABSTRACT
Aim: COVID-19 causes critical illness in nearly one-third of patients. Modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), and modified systemic inflammation score (mSIS) indicate systemic inflammation. The aim of this study was to assess the association between mGPS, mSIS and cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR) result(return of spontaneous circulation or death), through the comparison of blood test results among patients with COVID-19 and attempted CPR.

Material and Methods: Sixty-five patients who required hospitalization in an ICU due to COVID-19, and attempted CPR were screened retrospectively. Patients were separated into two groups; GroupEX covering deceased patients(n=45), and GroupROSC covering patients who attained return of spontaneous circulation(ROSC) (n=20). mGPS and mSIS of patients are calculated.

Results: In GroupROSC, neutrophil percentage, INR, and bilirubin values were found to be significantly low; monocyte percentage and albumin values were found to be significantly higher (p< 0.001, p=0.01, p=0.04, p= 0.01, p=0.004 , p<0.001 respectively). Additionally, there was a significant difference in mGPS between the groups(p=0.032). In the ROC analysis, mSIS and mGPS showed higher scores in GroupEX. mSIS sensitivity and specificity were detected at 83.7% and 68.4%, respectively (p=0.34), and mGPS sensitivity and specificity were detected at 95.3% and 68.4%, respectively (p=0.09). Conclusion: To our results, mGPS and mSIS can contribute to CPR result prediction.

Key words: COVID-19, mGPS, mSIS, serum biochemistry, resuscitation
Cite this Article As : Öztürk Sönmez L, Vatansev H, Ayrancı MK, Katipoğlu B, Szarpak L, Evrin T. The Effect of Laboratory Parameters and Prognostic Scores on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Coronavirus Disease-19 Patients in Intensive Care Unit. Mev Med Sci. 2023;3(2):54-60

Conflict of interest : Hayir

This article is published under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Mevlana Tıp Bilimleri
2023, Vol3, Issue2
E-ISSN: 2757-976X
Received : , Accepted : , Published Online :

References

  1. 1. Ge H, Wang X, Yuan X, et al. The epidemiology and clinical information about COVID-19. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;39(6):1011-1019. doi:10.1007/s10096-020-03874-z
  2. 2. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China [published correction appears in Lancet. 2020 Jan 30:]. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497-506. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
  3. 3. Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, et al. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1708-1720. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2002032
  4. 4. Sultanian P, Lundgren P, Strömsöe A, Aune et al. Cardiac arrest in COVID-19: characteristics and outcomes of in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A report from the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(11):1094-1106. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa1067
  5. 5. Augoustides JG. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During the Coronavirus Crisis: Important Updates for the Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia Community. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Sep;34(9):2312-2314. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.04.039. Epub 2020 Apr 28. PMID: 32434725; PMCID: PMC7187853.
  6. 6. Shao F, Sun P, Tang Z. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of inpatients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: The Wuhan experience. Resuscitation. 2020 Jul;152:95-96. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.05.009. Epub 2020 May 11. PMID: 32437782; PMCID: PMC7211744.
  7. 7. Edelson DP, Sasson C, Chan PS, et al. Interim Guidance for Basic and Advanced Life Support in Adults, Children, and Neonates With Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19: From the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Adult and Pediatric Task Forces of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141(25):e933-e943.
  8. 8. McMillan DC. The systemic inflammation-based Glasgow Prognostic Score: a decade of experience in patients with cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013 Aug;39(5):534-40. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.08.003. Epub 2012 Sep 17. PMID: 22995477.
  9. 9. Bolat I, Biteker M. Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score is a novel predictor of clinical outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2020 Jun;54(3):174-178. doi: 10.1080/14017431.2019.1709656. Epub 2020 Jan 22. PMID: 31965867.
  10. 10. Lin JX, Lin JP, Xie JW, et al. Prognostic importance of the preoperative modified systemic inflammation score for patients with gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22(2):403-412. doi:10.1007/s10120-018-0854-6
  11. 11. Zheng XZ, Gu YH, Su T, et al. Elevation of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein levels reflects renal interstitial inflammation in drug-induced acute tubulointerstitial nephritis. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):514. Published 2020 Nov 26. doi:10.1186/s12882-020-02175-z
  12. 12. Dolan RD, McMillan DC. The prevalence of cancer associated systemic inflammation: Implications of prognostic studies using the Glasgow Prognostic Score. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020 Jun;150:102962. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.102962. Epub 2020 Apr 18. PMID: 32344318.
  13. 13. Kanda M, Koike M, Tanaka C, et al. Modified Systemic Inflammation Score is Useful for Risk Stratification After Radical Resection of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(13):4773-4781. doi:10.1245/s10434-019-07914-7.
  14. 14. 19. Abate SM, Ahmed Ali S, Mantfardo B, Basu B. Rate of Intensive Care Unit admission and outcomes among patients with coronavirus: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020 Jul 10;15(7):e0235653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235653. PMID: 32649661; PMCID: PMC7351172.
  15. 15. Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, et al. Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes of 1591 Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1574-1581. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.5394
  16. 16. Ponti G, Maccaferri M, Ruini C, Tomasi A, Ozben T. Biomarkers associated with COVID-19 disease progression. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2020 Sep;57(6):389-399. doi: 10.1080/10408363.2020.1770685. Epub 2020 Jun 5. PMID: 32503382; PMCID: PMC7284147.
  17. 17. Zhang H, Cao X, Kong M, et al. Clinical and hematological characteristics of 88 patients with COVID-19. Int J Lab Hematol. 2020;42(6):780-787. doi:10.1111/ijlh.13291
  18. 18. Zhao Y, Yu C, Ni W, Shen H, Qiu M, Zhao Y. Peripheral blood inflammatory markers in predicting prognosis in patients with COVID-19. Some differences with influenza A. J Clin Lab Anal. 2021;35(1):e23657. doi:10.1002/jcla.23657
  19. 19. Zhang Y, Zheng L, Liu L, Zhao M, Xiao J, Zhao Q. Liver impairment in COVID-19 patients: A retrospective analysis of 115 cases from a single centre in Wuhan city, China. Liver Int. 2020 Sep;40(9):2095-2103. doi: 10.1111/liv.14455. Epub 2020 Apr 28. PMID: 32239796.
  20. 20. Jin X, Duan Y, Bao T, et al. The values of coagulation function in COVID-19 patients. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0241329. Published 2020 Oct 29. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241329
  21. 21. Wyczalkowska-Tomasik A, Czarkowska-Paczek B, Zielenkiewicz M, Paczek L. Inflammatory Markers Change with Age, but do not Fall Beyond Reported Normal Ranges. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2016 Jun;64(3):249-54. doi: 10.1007/s00005-015-0357-7. Epub 2015 Aug 18. PMID: 26283530; PMCID: PMC4863028.
  22. 22. Michaud M, Balardy L, Moulis G, et al. Proinflammatory cytokines, aging, and age-related diseases. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(12):877-882. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.009
  23. 23. Liu Y, Yang Y, Zhang C, et al. Clinical and biochemical indexes from 2019-nCoV infected patients linked to viral loads and lung injury. Sci China Life Sci. 2020;63(3):364-374. doi:10.1007/s11427-020-1643-8
  24. 24. Zhang J, Wang X, Jia X, et al. Risk factors for disease severity, unimprovement, and mortality in COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(6):767-772. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2020.04.012
  25. 25. Park JE, Chung KS, Song JH, et al. The C-Reactive Protein/Albumin Ratio as a Predictor of Mortality in Critically Ill Patients. J Clin Med. 2018 Oct 8;7(10):333. doi: 10.3390/jcm7100333. PMID: 30297655; PMCID: PMC6210319.
  26. 26. Cha MH, Regueiro M, Sandhu DS. Gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations of COVID-19: A comprehensive review. World J Gastroenterol. 2020 May 21;26(19):2323-2332. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i19.2323. PMID: 32476796; PMCID: PMC7243653.
  27. 27. Paliogiannis P, Zinellu A. Bilirubin levels in patients with mild and severe Covid-19: A pooled analysis. Liver Int. 2020 Jul;40(7):1787-1788. doi: 10.1111/liv.14477. Epub 2020 May 22. PMID: 32304343; PMCID: PMC7264680.
  28. 28. Nagasako Y, Suzuki M, Iriyama T, Nagasawa Y, Katayama Y, Masuda K. Acute palliative care unit-initiated interventions for advanced cancer patients at the end of life: prediction of impending death based on Glasgow Prognostic Score. Support Care Cancer. 2021 Mar;29(3):1557-1564. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05638-z. Epub 2020 Jul 30. PMID: 32734391.
  29. 29. Hohl CM, Rosychuk RJ, Archambault PM, et al. The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score to predict death among nonpalliative patients with COVID-19 presenting to emergency departments: a derivation and validation study. CMAJ Open. 2022;10(1):E90-E99. Published 2022 Feb 8. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210243
Figure 1
Figure 1