DECAF versus CURB-65 to Foresee Mortality among Patients Presenting with an Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the precision of DECAF (Dyspnea, Eosinopenia, Consolidation, Acidemia, Atrial Fibrillation) and CURB-65 scoring systems in prediction of mortality among patients presenting with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Material and methodsA prospective, cross-sectional study was done at the Department of Pulmonology, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, Karachi, Pakistan over a period of seven months, May 2019 through November 2019. Previously diagnosed patients of COPD (for more than six months), of either sex, aged between 40 and 70 years admitted primarily with an exacerbation were included in the study by non-probability consecutive sampling. Patients with myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease and malignancy were excluded. All relevant data including patients’ demography, history, examination, DECAF and CURB-65 scores and in-hospital mortality were recorded on a proforma and later analyzed by using SPSS, version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn for comparison of accuracy of both scoring systems in prediction of in-hospital mortality (based on area under the curve (AUC)).ResultsThere were 34 (29.8%) in-hospital mortalities while 80 (70.2%) survivals. AUC for DECAF score was 0.777 (0.673-0.881) and of CURB-65 was 0.715 (0.613-0.817) that reveals fair accuracy of the tests. Sensitivity of DECAF and CURB-65 scoring systems was almost similar i.e. 67.65% and 64.71% respectively, however DECAF was more specific than CURB-65 (86.25% compared to 68.75%, respectively).ConclusionThe findings of our study suggest the use of a combination of scoring systems for prediction of in-hospital mortality in acute exacerbation of COPD based on appropriateness, access to facilities and clinician's preference.