RESUMEN
Several risk scores were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify patients at risk for critical illness as a basic step to personalizing medicine even in pandemic circumstances. However, the generalizability of these scores with regard to different populations, clinical settings, healthcare systems, and new epidemiological circumstances is unknown. The aim of our study was to compare the predictive validity of qSOFA, CRB65, NEWS, COVID-GRAM, and 4C-Mortality score. In a monocentric retrospective cohort, consecutively hospitalized adults with COVID-19 from February 2020 to June 2021 were included; risk scores at admission were calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the precision-recall curve were compared using DeLong's method and a bootstrapping approach. A total of 347 patients were included; 23.6% were admitted to the ICU, and 9.2% died in a hospital. NEWS and 4C-Score performed best for the outcomes ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. The easy-to-use bedside score NEWS has proven to identify patients at risk for critical illness, whereas the more complex COVID-19-specific scores 4C and COVID-GRAM were not superior. Decreasing mortality and ICU-admission rates affected the discriminatory ability of all scores. A further evaluation of risk assessment is needed in view of new and rapidly changing epidemiological evolution.
RESUMEN
While myocardial parvovirus B19 (B19V), aside from enteroviruses (EV) and adenoviruses (ADV), has recently been found often in patients with myocarditis and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC), the pathogenetic significance of B19V genomes in those patients has not yet been sufficiently elucidated. In the present study, left ventricular endomyocardial biopsies from 24 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 55% due to IDC, and tissue from the right atrial appendage of 10 control patients undergoing bypass surgery with normal LVEF (>55%) were investigated for B19V, ADV, and EV genomes by specific nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR), by real time PCR or by reverse-transcription PCR, respectively. The myocardial tissue samples from the 10 controls were analyzed each in three different virological laboratories for B19V. In the IDC group, the frequency of the myocardial virus genomes found in 54% (13/24) of the patients was as follows: B19V: 50% (12/24), EV: 8% (2/24), including one patient with B19V and EV, and ADV: 0% (0/24). For comparison, the prevalence of B19V genomes was between 30% and 60% in the control group as detected in three different laboratories, but all these control subjects were EV- and ADV-negative. The number of B19V gene copies, however, was very low and similar both in the IDC and control group. In the majority of patients myocardial B19V persistence was associated with a low virus load irrespective of the underlying heart disease so that it may be of no importance in the pathogenesis of IDC.