The performance of the WHO COVID-19 severity classification, COVID-GRAM, VACO Index, 4C Mortality, and CURB-65 prognostic scores in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: data on 4014 patients from a tertiary center registry.

AIM: To evaluate the predictive properties of several common prognostic scores regarding survival outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 4014 consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized in our tertiary level institution from March 2020 to March 2021. Prognostic properties of the WHO COVID-19 severity classification, COVID-GRAM, Veterans Health Administration COVID-19 (VACO) Index, 4C Mortality Score, and CURB-65 score regarding 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, presence of severe or critical disease on admission, need for an intensive care unit treatment, and mechanical ventilation during hospitalization were evaluated. RESULTS: All of the investigated prognostic scores significantly distinguished between groups of patients with different 30-day mortality. The CURB-65 and 4C Mortality Score had the best prognostic properties for prediction of 30-day mortality (area under the curve [AUC] 0.761 for both) and in-hospital mortality (AUC 0.757 and 0.762, respectively). The 4C Mortality Score and COVID-GRAM best predicted the presence of severe or critical disease (AUC 0.785 and 0.717, respectively). In the multivariate analysis evaluating 30-day mortality, all scores mutually independently provided additional prognostic information, except the VACO Index, whose prognostic properties were redundant. CONCLUSION: Complex prognostic scores based on many parameters and comorbid conditions did not have better prognostic properties regarding survival outcomes than a simple CURB-65 prognostic score. CURB-65 also provides the largest number of prognostic categories (five), allowing more precise risk stratification than other prognostic scores.

Overall hemostasis potential and aPTT-clot waveform analysis as powerful laboratory diagnostic tools for identification of hemophilia A patients with unexpected bleeding phenotype.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally used laboratory methods do not always accurately reflect bleeding severity in hemophilia A (HA) patients. The ability of three global assays for identifying patients with unexpected bleeding phenotype was investigated. METHODS: Overall hemostasis potential (OHP), aPTT-clot waveform analysis (aPTT-CWA), endogenous thrombin potential (ETP), FVIII activities, and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 concentrations were measured in 62 HA patients (30 severe and 32 non-severe) and 27 male controls. Bleeding phenotype was determined using our proposed scoring system including age at first joint bleed, number of target joints, and number of joint/muscle bleeds per year. Bleeding score ≤ 4 defined patients with mild bleeding phenotype (N = 27); score ≥ 5 defined severe bleeding phenotype (N = 35). RESULTS: The receiver operating characteristic analysis performed for distinguishing patients with severe and mild bleeding phenotype yielded following values of area under the curve: 0.910 (FVIII); 0.891 (aPTT-CWA parameter DELTA); 0.769 (OHP); and 0.634 (ETP). Unexpected bleeding phenotype was identified in 11/62 HA patients: 8/32 (25%) non-severe HA patients had severe, while 3/30 (10%) severe HA patients had mild bleeding phenotype, and global assays enabled the identification of all these patients. OHP and DELTA were revealed as the most reliable parameters for bleeding phenotype determination (10/11 and 9/11 unexpected results, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes OHP and aPTT-CWA as a powerful laboratory diagnostic tool in identifying HA patients with unexpected bleeding presentations, with the best results achieved by combining both assays. Global assays should not completely replace FVIII activity measurement but should be a part of the HA diagnostic algorithm.