4C Mortality Score and CT Severity Score among COVID-19 Patients; A Single Center Prospective Study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2577127/v1

Abstract

Background

Predictions about the hospital course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are of paramount value.

Objectives

This research was designed to validate 4C mortality and CT severity scores (CT-SS) and detect their relations among patients with covid-19 who are hospitalized as prognostication tools.

Patients and methods

Two hundred and ninety-six confirmed COVID-19 cases were included. They were allocated into 3 groups according to severity;78 in non-severe group, 97 in severe group, and 121 patients in critical group. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, co-morbidities, lines of treatment, 4C mortality score and CT severity score were assessed upon admission.

Results

The study revealed that 90% and 84.3% sensitivities were observed for both of 4C mortality and CT-SS respectively as predictors of mortality. Significant correlation between both scores (r = 0.6. p = 0.0001) was detected. Multivariate analysis identified 7-fold increased risk of mortality for the patients with 4C mortality score > 9.5 (p = 0.001). CT-SS > 12 (p = 0.02), age ≥ 60, male gender, hypertension and diabetes mellitus were also found as significant independent factors associated with increased mortality.

Conclusion

Satisfactory results were found on addition a verified radiological score to commonly used risk-stratification scores when estimating the probability of death in severe and critical cases in COVID-19.

Introduction

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic is posing a challenge to the world's healthcare systems. Risk stratification is necessary due to the diverse outcomes seen, from subpopulations that are primarily asymptomatic to subpopulations with significant fatality rates (1). Such risk classification can assist in more effectively directing efforts for both prevention and treatment of confirmed cases (i.e., hospitalization vs. community isolation).

Predictions of the patients' hospital course are crucial because patients at a high risk of dying could be prioritized for quick, aggressive treatment. Prior to further deterioration, high-risk patients may get steroid therapy and be quickly transferred to critical care.

Numerous prognosis scores for COVID-19 were found in a review article (2), and they differed in terms of context, expected outcome measure, and clinical characteristics covered.

One of them is the 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterization Consortium) mortality Score (3), which is a risk-score that forecasts in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients who are hospitalized. The 4C Mortality Score requires just parameters that are often accessible at hospital presentations, making it simple to utilize. It is based on a patient cohort from the UK.

Early disease detection, disease management, and disease course monitoring all depend on high resolution CT chest imaging. Additionally, the imaging results can be used to determine the severity of the condition, which greatly aids clinicians in using their clinical judgement and ensures effective and prompt care (4) .Using a semi-quantitative grading technique based on the visual evaluation of each implicated lobe, the severity of a CT scan can be evaluated (5).

The accuracy and relation of 4C mortality score to CT severity score need to be evaluated.

Objective Of The Work

This study was done to determine the validity of both of 4C mortality score and CT severity score as a predictor of mortality and their correlation in COVID-19 patients. In addition, the identification of other possible risk factors of mortality was evaluated.

Patients And Methods

This prospective study was performed in an isolation facility for COVID-19 patients at the Cardiothoracic Minia University Hospital. Patients were enrolled from February 2021 to October 2021. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, Egypt, Approval number (10/2/2021) and an informed consent was obtained from all participants and this was mentioned in the study protocol.

In this research, 296 patients with COVID-19 diagnosed based on the WHO case definition (6) were included out of 310 patients who were recruited to the hospital during the enrollment period.

Inclusion criteria: adult patients > 18 years old with positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-Cov2.

Exclusion criteria: 8 patients known to have chronic lung diseases and 6 patients with congestive heart failure.

According to WHO disease severity at the time of admission (6),division of patients were executed into 3 groups as follows:( non-severe) (Group I) included 78 moderate cases, 97 severe cases (Group II) and 121 critical cases (Group III).

Moderate cases were patients who exhibit signs of pneumonia by radiography with an oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≥ 94% on room air. Severe cases were identified if one of the following criteria was met: SpO2 < 94% on room air, arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratios below 300 mm Hg, respiratory rates above 30 breaths per minute, or lung infiltrate levels above 50%. If one of the following characteristics was present: respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction requiring ICU monitoring, the disease was categorized as critical.

Data pertinent to demographics, clinical and laboratory data, co-morbidities, lines of treatment, ventilatory support, length of hospital stay, and outcome data were collected from all patients.4C mortality score was calculated from all groups. The score of 4C mortality was validated and derived within the ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium) World Health Organization Clinical Characterization Protocol UK study. The Glasgow Coma Scale, blood urea nitrogen, C-reactive protein, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, and comorbidities are all included in the 4C score. The 4C score has risk categories of Low (0–3), Intermediate (48), High (914), and Very High (15), and spans from 0 to 21 (3).

All cases underwent non-contrast high resolution CT using 16 detector CT scanners (Lightspeed, GE Healthcare, WI), (Aquilion, Toshiba Medical System). The parameters of the CT scanning were used: tube voltage 120 kV; tube current 200–250 mAS; a high resolution-method, using thin slice thickness < 1.5mm, and the scan matrix was 512 × 512 matrices. The area from the lower neck down to the upper abdomen just below the diaphragm was covered by the CT scan. Coronal and sagittal images were visualized in the lung and mediastinal windows using multi-planner reformat (MPR).

Each of the five lobes was visually assessed on a scale of 0 to 5, and the CT severity score (CT-SS) was derived depending on the degree of lobar involvement. The following scores were assigned: 0 (none), 1 (affecting < 5% of the lobe), 2 (affecting 5–25% of the lobe), 3 (affecting 26–49% of the lobe), 4 (affecting 50–75% of the lobe), and 5 (affecting > 75% of the lobe). So, each lobe might receive a maximum CT score of 5. The five lobe scores were added together to create the total CT score (range from 0 to 25).If the total score is ≤ 7, it is a mild category, 8–17 ; it is a moderate and ≥ 18; it is severe category(5). (Figs. 1–3).

Statistical analysis

Processing the data was carried out using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 22). Both continuous and categorical data were expressed using the terms mean and standard deviation (SD). For qualitative data between two or three groups, the Chi square test was employed, ANOVA one-way test for quantitative parametric data comparing the three groups.

In the context of the analysis of variance, post hoc analysis was carried out using the least significant difference test (LSD). P < 0.05 is considered significant. With the use of calculations for cut-off value, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value (PPV), negative predicted value (NPV), and area under curve (AUC), ROC curves (receiver operating characteristic) for both the 4C mortality score and CT- SS were created. Pearson's r correlation was utilized to test the correlation. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis were used to do the logistic regression study.

Results

Clinical and demographic data are shown in (Table 1). Patients with non-severe group of COVID-19 were significantly younger than those of severe and critical categories (p = 0.001). Males were statistically considerably more prevalent in non-severe cases than in severe and critical cases (p = 0.023). Comparatively to the severe and critical patients, 55 patients (69.5%) in the non-severe group experienced dyspnea (p = 0.0001). Patients in the severe group vomited far more frequently than those in the non-severe and critical groups did (p = 0.007). Compared to those in the critical group, patients with non-severe and severe COVID 19 had a substantial increase in taste and smell loss (p = 0.0001). Additionally, compared to the non-critical group, the severe and critical groups had greater tachypnea and oxygen desaturation (p = 0.0001 for each).

Critical group had the highest value for both of 4C mortality score and CT-SS with a significant difference between them vs those of severe and non-severe groups (p = 0.0001 for each) (Table 2).

The outcomes of analysis of ROC for both of 4C mortality score and CT-SS as predictors of mortality are represented in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 respectively. The AUC was 0.84(95% CI: 0.80–0.88, p = 0.001) for 4C mortality score at a cut-off value of 9.5 to predict sensitivity and specificity for mortality as 89.9% and 62.8% respectively (Fig. 4). CT-SS sensitivity and specificity was observed as 84.3% and 64.7% respectively considering a threshold value of 12.5 with AUC of 0.83(95% CI : 0.77–0.89, p = 0.0001) (Fig. 5).

Figure (6) shows that there is a moderate positive correlation between CT severity score and 4C mortality score (r = 0.6) with statistical significance (p value = 0.0001).

Table (3) depicts characteristics of alive and dead patients. The total number of dead patients was 89, 86 in critical group out of 121 and 3 cases in severe group. Alive patients were significantly younger than dead ones (54.7 vs 65.3, p = 0.001) and 70% of non-survivors their ages ≥ 60 years. Non survivors were more in males and had more comorbidities and higher inflammatory markers than survivors. In addition, both of CT-SS and 4C mortality scores were higher as compared to survivors. Regarding ventilatory support, 50% of non survivors used non - invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation, nevertheless no remarkable difference was existent in terms of the length of hospital stay between survivors and non-survivors (9.06 days vs 8.8 days, p = 0.7).

Univariate analysis suggests that clinical variables associated with mortality included age ≥ 60 (p = 0.001), male sex (p = 0.02), hypertension and diabetes mellitus (p = 0.0001 for each), oxygen saturation < 90% (p = 0.0001), 4C mortality score > 9.5 and CT-SS > 12 ( p = 0.0001 for each ). While the only variables correlated with mortality in multivariate analysis were oxygen saturation < 90%, 4C mortality score and CT SS (p = 0.0001, p = 0.001 and p = 0.02 respectively). (Table 4).

Discussion

It is necessary to develop a quick, accurate scale to identify patients who are most at risk of dying. In the past, scoring systems have been applied to the healthcare system to stratify risk, predict outcomes, and efficiently manage patients (7). Numerous risk stratification systems in COVID-19 are used to forecast death. In the current study, we used the 4C mortality score among several COVID-19 patient categories. The range of the score is 0 to 15. Considering this, the anticipated mortality rates is as follows: Low-risk groups ranged from 1.2 to 1.7%, intermediate-risk groups from 9.1 to 9.9%, high-risk groups from 31.4 to 34.9%, and extremely high-risk groups from 61.5 to 66.2% (3).

Our study revealed that the average 4C mortality score in non-severe patients was 4.8. This value corresponds to an intermediate risk group for mortality with an in-hospital mortality rate of 9.9% in Knight et al., 2020 study (3), but none of the patients in this group in the present study passed away. The severe group got a 4C mortality score of 9.2 and this value had a hospital mortality rate of 34.9% in the original study (3), while just 3.1% of the patients in this group died in the current research. When we calculated this score for the critical group, we found that its mean value was 12.5 and that it corresponded to a high-risk category with 34.9% of in-hospital mortality. However, we found a significantly higher mortality in this group, where 86 out of 121 cases passed away, representing a 71.1% in-hospital mortality rate.

At a cut-off value of 9.5 for the 4C mortality score across all studied patients, this value had an AUC of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.84–0.88, p = 0.001), a sensitivity of 89.9%, a specificity of 62.8%, and positive and negative predicted values for mortality of 51% and 93.5%, respectively. According to Knight and colleagues (3), AUC was 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.78 to 0.79) and sensitivity 92.5% at a cut-off value of ≥ 9 to rule in mortality.

Using the same score in a Saudi Arabian study (8), at a cutoff value of 4C mortality score > 9 it had a sensitivity of 70.5%, specificity of 73.97%, positive predictive value of 62.4%, and negative predictive value of 80.2% at AUC of 0.81.

A CT scan can be a useful tool for determining the severity of each patient's condition (5). Quantitative approaches or software that uses deep learning algorithms to quantify the percentage of affected lung volumes can also be utilized to evaluate the severity (9). In the present study, we used visual method for assessing CT severity and the mean value of CT severity score among all studied patients was 12.6 (moderate severity) with a sensitivity and specificity of 84.3% and 64.7% respectively for predicting mortality. The mean CT-SS of COVID-19 patients in another Egyptian study was 13.6 (moderate severity) (10).

We found that there was a moderate to strong significant positive correlation between 4C mortality score and CT severity score in COVID-19 patients. Our study is the first to use the 4C mortality score explicitly along with the CT severity score as a prognostication tool. Therefore, a moderate severity CT severity score can be utilized as a complementary for a mortality risk indicator.

The current study revealed that the overall mortality rate was 30.1% and patients of critical group represented 75% of this number. A previous Egyptian multicenter, retrospective study (11) was conducted on all PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases admitted to 6 quarantine hospitals with a total of 3712 hospitalized patients were included; of them, 900 deaths were recorded (24.2%). The higher mortality in our study than an aforementioned one could be attributed to that, patients of critical group represented 41% of the studied patients. No classification of patients according to severity was done in the multicenter study.

On comparison the baseline characteristics of survivors and non-survivors, we found that about 70% of deceased patients, their ages more than 60 years. This finding is consistent with the results of previous study (12) that showed a higher mortality rate in older patients with COVID-19, particularly in those aged ≥ 60 years. We found also that a higher existing comorbidities and mortality, this coincides to the results of a prospective study that was conducted in Spain, in which comorbidities especially hypertension was the most reported previous comorbidity in the non-survivors’ group (61.10%, p < 0.0001) (13).In addition, both of 4C mortality score and CT severity score were significantly higher in deceased patients than alive ones. Regarding the use of ventilatory support, it was revealed that the use of NIV and IMV were more in non-survivors. Another study in China showing that non-survivors were more likely to have received noninvasive mechanical ventilation [57%, p < 0.001], invasive mechanical ventilation [35%, p < 0.001] than survivors (14).

On analysis the associated factors related to mortality, we found that age more than 60 had a significant role in mortality with an odd ratio of 2.7 and this coincides with results of Abdel Ghaffar et al study (11). Data from China and Italy reported also that the case fatality rate of COVID-19 significantly increases with age (15). This may be attributed to immunosenescence, and risk for immunopathology in elderly with decreased B and T lymphocyte activities are major contributors to older persons' susceptibility to severe infection and death (16).

It was found that male gender had a significant risk factor of mortality (OR 1.7) in comparison with females Owing to the higher expression of ACE II in males, which is the main receptor for the binding of SARS-CoV-2 to host cells (17), can contribute to this finding. We found also that either of hypertension and diabetes mellitus had a high odd ratio for mortality on univariate analysis (OR 3.13, p = 0.0001, OR 3.14, p = 0.0001 respectively). A meta-analysis included a total of 24 observational studies with 99,918 COVID-19 patients found that hypertensive patients have a 2.17-fold higher risk for COVID-19 mortality (OR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.67 − 2.82; P < 0.001) (18).

Another meta – analysis included thirteen studies with a total number of 3027 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; they reported that diabetes is associated with an almost fourfold greater risk for severe disease and death in patients with COVID-19 (odds ratio (OR) = 3.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) [2.68–5.03]; P < 0.001) (19).

The current research found that both of 4C mortality score more than 9.5 and CT-SS > 12 had a significant odd ratio of mortality in both of univariate and multivariate analyses. No previous studies deal with this issue.

In conclusion, on using 4C mortality score as a simple risk stratification score of mortality, it overestimates mortality in non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients, yet, underestimates it in critical patients. Semiquantative radiological assessment by CT severity score can be used as a surrogate for prediction of mortality.

4C mortality score > 9.5 and CT severity score > 12 represent the highest value for prediction of mortality from COVID in comparison to other patient characteristics.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All methods that used in this study were done in accordance to the declaration of Helsinki and clinical practice guidelines. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, Egypt, Approval number (10/2/2021) and an informed consent was obtained from all participants and this was mentioned in the study protocol. 

Consent of Publication

Not Applicable

Availability of data and materials

All data collected are included in the manuscript

Funding

Open access funding provided by the Science, Technology Innovation Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (ENB).

Conflict of interest: All authors report no conflicts of interest. None of the authors had a financial support for this research.

Acknowledgment

None

Author Contribution

A.F.S designed the study, supervised and edit the manuscript. A.H.E provided the clinical data and CT of cases. T.E.E analyzed the CT scores of cases. A.F.M participated in the editing and reviewing the article. All authors read the manuscript before submission. 

References

  1. Wu JT. Leung K, Bushman M, Kishore N, Niehus R, de Salazar PM, et al. Estimating clinical severity of COVID-19 from the transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China. Nat Med 2020. Apr;26(4):506-510.
  2. Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, Riley RD, Heinze G, Schuit E, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19 infection: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ 2020 Apr;369 m1328.
  3. Knight SR, Ho A, Pius R, Buchan I, Carson G, Drake TM, et al. ISARIC4C investigators. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterization Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score. BMJ 2020;370:m3339.
  4. Liu J, Yu H and Zhang S. The indispensable role of chest CT in the detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging2020; 47, 1638–1639.
  5. Francone M, Iafrate F, Masci GM, Coco S, Cilia F, Manganaro L, et al. Chest CT score in COVID-19 patients: correlation with disease severity and short-term prognosis. Eur Radiol 2020 Dec;30(12):6808-6817.
  6. World Health Organization. 2020. Clinical management of COVID-19: interim guidance, 27 May 2020.
  7. Oprita B, Aignatoaie B, Gabor-Postole DA. Scores and scales used in emergency medicine. practicability in toxicology. J Med Life 2014;7(Spec No. 3):4–7.
  8. Aletreby WT, Mumtaz SA, Shahzad SA, Ahmed I, Alodat MA, Gharba M, et al. External Validation of 4C ISARIC Mortality Score in Critically ill COVID-19 Patients from Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Med Med Sci. 2022, Jan-Apr;10(1):19-24.
  9. Huang L, Han R, Ai T, Yu P, Kang H, Tao Q, et al. Serial Quantitative Chest CT Assessment of COVID-19: A Deep Learning Approach. Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging 2020; Mar 30;2(2): e200075.
  10. Hafez MA, El Hinnawy YH, Nabil DM, Tadros SF. Diagnostic performance of chest computed tomography in coronavirus disease 2019 infection and its correlation with disease severity. Kasr Al Ainy Medical Journal 2021; 27:1–6.
  11. Abdel Ghaffar MM, Omran D, Elgebaly A, Bahbah EI, Afify S, AlSoda M, et al. Prediction of mortality in hospitalized Egyptian patients with Coronavirus disease-2019: A multicenter retrospective study. Plos one 2022; 17(1), e0262348.
  12. Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2019; 395; 1054–62.
  13. Laguna-Goya R, Utrero-Rico A, Talayero P, Lasa-Lazaro M, Ramirez-Fernandez A, Naranjo L, et al. IL-6-based mortality risk model for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020; Oct;146(4):799-807.
  14. Chen L, Yu J, He W, Chen L, Yuan G, Dong F, et al. Risk factors for death in 1859 subjects with COVID-19. Leukemia 2020; Aug; 34(8): 2173–83.
  15. Chen Y, Klein SL, Garibaldi BT, Li H, Wu C, Osevala NM, et al. Aging in COVID-19: Vulnerability, immunity and intervention. Ageing Res Rev. 2021; 65:101205.
  16. Pawelec G. Age and immunity: what is “immunosenescence”? Exp Gerontol 2018; May; 105:4–9.
  17. Bienvenu LA, Noonan J, Wang X, Peter K. Higher mortality of COVID-19 in males: sex differences in immune response and cardiovascular comorbidities. Cardiovasc Res 2020; Dec 1;116(14):2197-2206.
  18. DU Y, Zhou N, Zha W and LV Y. Hypertension is a clinically important risk factor for critical illness and mortality in COVID-19: A meta-analysis. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2021; Mar 10; 31(3): 745–755.
  19. Zheng Z, Peng F, Xu B, Zhao J, Liu H, Peng J, et al. Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Infect. 2020; Aug;81(2): e16-e25.

Tables

Table (1) Demography and clinical characteristics among the studied groups
Variable
Group I
(n = 78)
Non severe
Group II
(n = 97)
Severe
Group III
(n = 121)
Critical
p value
I vs II
I vs III
II vs III
Age (years)
48.3 ± 15.4
57.6 ± 12.5
64.5 ± 10.8
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Gender, n (%)
-Males
-Females
59 (75.7%)
19 (24.3%)
58 (59.8%)
39 (40.2%)
70 (57.8%)
51 (42.1%)
0.023
0.028
0.008
0.692
Smoking, n (%)
- current
- ex-smoker
- non-smoker
15 (19.2%)
8 (10.3%)
55 (70.5%)
22 (22.7%)
18 (18.5%)
57 (58.8%)
30 (24.8%)
22 (18.2%)
69 (57%)
0.34
Fever, n (%)
75 (96.1%)
94 (96.9%)
117(96.7%)
0.689
Dyspnea, n (%)
55 (69.5%)
97 (100%)
121 (100%)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.99
Dry cough, n (%)
68 (87.2%)
90 (92.8%)
115(95.1%)
0.091
Diarrhea, n (%)
36 (37.2%)
43 (44.3%)
40 (33.1%)
0.159
Vomiting, n (%)
14 (17.9%)
23 (23.7%)
14 (11.6%)
0.025
0.435
0.084
0.007
Loss of taste & smell, n (%)
35 (44.9%)
20 (20.6%)
2 (1.7%)
0.0001
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
Respiratory rate (mean ± SD)
23.7 ± 4.3
29.2 ± 6.2
35.8 ± 7.1
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
SpO2%
(mean ± SD)
95.3 ± 1.7
83.9 ± 6.9
64.1 ± 14.8
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001


Table (2): 4C Mortality score and CT severity score of the studied groups

Variable
Group I
(n = 78)
Non severe
Group II
(n = 97)
Severe
Group III
(n = 121)
Critical
p value
I vs II
I vs III
II vs III
4C Mortality score
(mean ± SD)
4.8 ± 3.0
9.2 ± 3.5
12.5 ± 2.9
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
CT severity score
(mean ± SD)
9.1 ± 3.2
13.0 ± 2.9
15.9 ± 5.8
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001


Table (3) Comparison between survival and non-survival groups

Variable
Survivors
n = 207
Non-survivors
n = 89
p value
Age
(mean ± SD)
< 60
≥60
54.7 ± 14.5
113(54.6%)
94(45.4%)
65.3 ± 10.7
27(30.3%)
62(69.7%)
0.0001
0.0001
Sex
(n%)
-male
-female
136 (65.7%)
71 (34.3%)
46 (51.7%)
43 (48.3%)
0.02
Comorbidities
-yes
-no
106 (51.2%)
101 (48.8%)
76 (85.4%)
13(14.6%)
0.0001
Inflammatory markers
(mean ± SD)
-C reactive protein (mg/l)
- Serum ferritin(µg/l)
- D dimer(µ/ml)
56.7 ± 37.7
634.2 ± 347.2
0.7 ± 1.8
85.8 ± 42.8
881.7 ± 439.06
1.4 ± 2.07
0.0001
0.0001
0.004
CT severity score
(mean ± SD)
≤ 12
> 12
11.5 ± 3.8
134(64.7%)
73(35.3%)
17.09 ± 5.8
14(15.7%)
75(84.3%)
0.0001
0.0001
4C mortality score
(mean ± SD)
≤ 8
> 8
7.8 ± 4.06
117(56.8%)
89(43.2%)
13.01 ± 2.7
6(6.7%)
83(93.3%)
0.0001
0.0001
Anti-viral
(n%)
-HCQ & iverzine
-Lopinavir-ritonavir
-Favipiravir
-Remdesivir
101 (48.8%)
20 (9.7%)
65 (31.4%)
65 (31.4%)
68 (76.4%)
13 (14.6%)
3 (3.4%)
71 (78%)
0.02
0.6
0.0001
0.0001
-Supplemental O2, n (%)
-NIV, n (%)
-IMV, n (%)
190 (92%)
72 (34.8%)
0
20 (22.4%)
50 (56.1%)
55 (61.8%)
0.0001
0.0001
Length of hospital stay(days)
(mean ± SD)
9.06 ± 4.2
8.8 ± 4.5
0.7

Data are represented as number, %

HCQ= hydroxychloroquine ,  NIV=non-invasive ventilation, IMV=invasive mechanical ventilation

Table (4) Factors associated with mortality among the studied groups
 
Variable
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
OR (95% CI)
p
OR (95% CI)
p
Age (≥ 60)
2.7(1.6–4.6)
0.0001
0.84(0.34–2.06)
0.7
Sex (male)
1.7(1.08–2.9)
0.02
1.80.76–4.3)
0.1
Smoking
1.2(0.67–2.1)
0.466
1.6(0.64–4.06)
0.3
Comorbidity
Hypertension
Diabetes mellitus
3.13 (0.5–1.2)
3.14 (0.7–1.6)
0.0001
0.0001
1.09
1.64
0.79
0.137
SpO2 at admission (< 90)
0.90(0.88–0.92)
0.0001
0.92(0.89–0.95)
0.0001
Absolute lymphocyte count
(< 1000 /mm3)
1.0
0.5
1(0.99-1)
0.6
4C mortality score
(> 9.5)
15.01(7.1–31.5)
0.0001
6.9(2.1-22.09)
0.001
CT-severity score
(> 12)
9.8(5.1–18.6)
0.0001
2.5(1.1–5.6)
0.02