Next Article in Journal
Morphological Diversity of Permanent Maxillary Lateral Incisors and Their Impact on Aesthetics and Function in Orthodontically Treated Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
How the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Attendance at a Tertiary Orthopedic Center Emergency Department: A Comparison between the First and Second Waves
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Cytology Pap Smear Images Based on Ensemble Deep Learning Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Performance Analysis of Self-Collected Nasal and Oral Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Prognostic Nutritional Index, Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score, and Inflammatory Biomarkers as Predictors of Deep Vein Thrombosis, Acute Pulmonary Embolism, and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients

1
Clinic of Vascular Surgery, Mures County Emergency Hospital, 540136 Targu Mures, Romania
2
Department of Vascular Surgery, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania
3
Department of Anatomy, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania
4
Department of Radiology, Mureș County Emergency Hospital, 540136 Targu Mureș, Romania
5
Doctoral School of Medicine and Pharmacy, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540142 Targu Mures, Romania
6
Faculty of Pharmacy, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania
7
Department of Surgery, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania
8
Department of Orthopedics, Regina Maria Health Network, 540098 Targu Mures, Romania
9
Department of Orthopedics, Humanitas MedLife Hospital, 400664 Cluj Napoca, Romania
10
Department of Pathophysiology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors have contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(11), 2757; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112757
Submission received: 16 October 2022 / Revised: 7 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 November 2022 / Published: 11 November 2022

Abstract

:
Background: Numerous tools, including nutritional and inflammatory markers, have been evaluated as the predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients. This study aims to verify the predictive role of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI), CONUT Score, and inflammatory markers (monocyte to lymphocyte ratio (MLR), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), systemic inflammatory index (SII), Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI), and Aggregate Index of Systemic Inflammation (AISI)) in cases of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and acute pulmonary embolism (APE) risk, as well as mortality, in COVID-19 patients. Methods: The present study was designed as an observational, analytical, retrospective cohort study, and included 899 patients over the age of 18 who had a COVID-19 infection, confirmed through real time-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and were admitted to the County Emergency Clinical Hospital and Modular Intensive Care Unit of UMFST “George Emil Palade” of Targu Mures, Romania between January 2020 and March 20212. Results: Non-Surviving patients were associated with a higher incidence of chronic kidney disease (p = 0.01), cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation (AF) p = 0.01; myocardial infarction (MI) p = 0.02; peripheral arterial disease (PAD) p = 0.0003), malignancy (p = 0.0001), tobacco (p = 0.0001), obesity (p = 0.01), dyslipidemia (p = 0.004), and malnutrition (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that both nutritional and inflammatory markers had a high baseline value and were all independent predictors of adverse outcomes for all enrolled patients (for all p < 0.0001). The presence of PAD, malignancy, and tobacco, were also independent predictors of all outcomes. Conclusions: According to our findings, higher MLR, NLR, PLR, SII, SIRI, AISI, CONUT Score, and lower PNI values at admission strongly predict DVT risk, APE risk, and mortality in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, PAD, malignancy, and tobacco, all predicted all outcomes, while CKD predicts APE risk and mortality, but not the DVT risk.

1. Introduction

From December 2019 until now (16 October 2022), the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has affected over 629 million people and caused 6,571,064 deaths worldwide, having a negative impact on the medical practice [1,2,3].
COVID-19 patients’ clinical picture ranges from common symptoms such as fever, cough, and loss of taste and smells, to severe forms with a negative evolution, such as acute respiratory failure or sepsis. These also necessitate hospitalization in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11].
Among the most severe complications of COVID-19 patients are the hypercoagulability status, associated with arterial and venous thrombosis, which significantly increases the risk of mortality [12,13,14,15,16].
Thromboembolic complications occur at different rates depending on the severity of the disease, ranging from 10% for patients admitted to non-intensive care units, to 20%–30% for patients admitted to the ICU, and up to 70% for severe forms of the disease that require prolonged IMV [12,13,14,15,16]. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and acute pulmonary embolism (APE) are the most common thromboembolic consequences, both of which are associated with poor patient outcomes and a high mortality rate [12,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24].
Numerous papers aimed to discover diagnostic and prognostic methods that could predict the deterioration of COVID-19 patients’ health. The prognostic role of D-Dimer, C-reactive protein (CRP), and fibrinogen levels in the incidence of thromboembolic events and mortality in COVID-19 patients is well-known and has been extensively researched in the specialized literature over the last two years [25,26,27,28,29,30,31].
Researchers have also focused on red blood cell ratios, which are based on the total amount of neutrophils, monocytes, platelets, and lymphocytes, which are simple to compute, and frequently conducted in hospitals.
Furthermore, the predictive role of these markers has been proven in the cases of renal pathologies [32,33,34], cardiovascular pathologies [35,36,37,38,39,40], oncological pathologies [41,42,43,44], and, most recently, for COVID-19 patients [45,46,47,48,49,50,51].
In terms of nutritional status, the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) and controlling nutritional status (CONUT) scores are associated with disease severity and have a predictive role in COVID-19 patient mortality [52,53,54,55,56,57]
The aims of this study were as follows: (1) to determine the role of systemic inflammatory biomarkers in DVT risk, APE risk, and mortality; (2) to determine the role of nutritional markers in DVT risk, APE risk, and mortality; and (3) to evaluate the risk factors associated with DVT, APE, and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The present study was designed as an observational, analytical, retrospective cohort study, and included 889 patients over 18 years of age with a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, confirmed through real-time-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) admitted to Mures County Emergency Hospital, in Targu Mures, Romania, and Modular Intensive Care Unit of George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania, between January 2020 and March 2022.
Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with hematological diseases, autoimmune diseases, patients who needed ICU admission in the first 24 h, patients who developed other thromboembolic events during hospitalization, such as acute limb ischemia or stroke, and patients with a history of DVT or APE in the last year.
Data analysis was conducted depending on survival during the hospitalization and patients were divided into two groups named “Survivors” and “non-Survivors”. The ideal cut-off value for all markers studied was used to calculate the DVT and APE developed, and the mortality rate.

2.2. Data Collection

The patient’s age, gender, and hospitalization period were extracted from the hospital’s electronic database. Regarding comorbidities, the following cardiac pathologies were recorded: arterial hypertension (AH), atrial fibrillation (AF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), history of myocardial infarction (MI), chronic heart failure (CHF), as well as other pathologies: chronic kidney disease (CKD), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and diabetes mellitus (DM).
The following were extracted from the first laboratory analyses: hemoglobin level, hematocrit level, glucose level, total cholesterol level, triglyceride level, serum albumin, Glomerular filtration rate (GFR), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine, number of neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, platelets, potassium, and sodium.
All patients received prophylactic anticoagulation during the hospitalization with low-weight molecular heparin.

2.3. Nutritional and Inflammatory Markers

Nutritional and inflammatory biomarkers were determined from the first blood test result. The ratio was calculated using the equations as seen in Table 1.

2.4. Study Outcomes

The primary endpoints were the occurrence of DVT, APE, and mortality during the hospitalization stay. The number of days spent in the hospital and the combinate endpoint of DVT and APE were recorded as secondary outcomes. The primary outcomes were stratified for the optimal cut-off value of inflammatory and nutritional biomarkers.

2.5. Deep Vein Thrombosis and Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnostics

The patients who presented symptoms of DVT were evaluated by Doppler ultrasound for both upper or lower extremities, and the level of vein thrombosis was recorded. Moreover, patients with suspected APE during hospitalization were evaluated by using a Computed Tomography Angiogram.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

SPSS for Mac OS version 28.0.1.0 was used for statistical analysis (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Chi-square tests were used to assess the associations of the ratios with category factors, while t-Student or Mann–Whitney tests were used to assess differences in continuous variables. To analyze the predictive power and to establish the cut-off values of inflammatory biomarkers, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was utilized. The ROC curve analysis was used to determine the appropriate MLR, NLR, PLR, SII, SIRI, AISI, PNI, and CONUT Score cut-off values based on the Youden index (Youden Index = Sensitivity + Specificity – 1, ranging from 0 to 1). To identify independent predictors of DVT and APE risk, and mortality in COVID-19 patients, a multivariate logistic regression analysis using variables with p < 0.1 was undertaken.

3. Results

During the studied period, 889 patients were enrolled. Regarding the negative evolution, 143 patients (16.08%) died during hospitalization, 191 patients (21.48%) had DVT, 62 patients had APE (6.97%), 38 patients (4.27%) were diagnosed with DVT and APE. Of the patients, 474 (53.32%) were male, with a mean age of 70.5 ± 12.9 (21 to 101).
Regarding the comorbidities and risk factors, the non-survivor patients had a higher incidence of AF (p = 0.01), MI (p = 0.02), CKD (p = 0.01), PAD (p = 0.001), Tobacco (p = 0.0001), Obesity (p = 0.01), and dyslipidemia (p = 0.004), as seen in Table 2. In terms of Nutritional status, lower PNI score (p < 0.0001), higher CONUT Score (p < 0.0001), as well as moderate (p < 0.0001) and severe (p < 0.0001) malnutrition were present in the non-survivors group. Moreover, regarding the laboratory findings, non-survivor patients had lower hemoglobin levels (p = 0.001), hematocrit (p = 0.0002), cholesterol (p < 0.0001), albumin (p < 0.0001), and lymphocyte (p < 0.0001), and higher glucose (p = 0.006), bun (p < 0.0001), creatinine (p < 0.0001), and neutrophils (p < 0.0001). All systemic inflammatory markers were higher in the second group (for all p < 0.0001). Moreover, all outcomes studied were higher in the poor outcome group (for all p < 0.0001).
The ROC curves of all inflammatory and nutritional markers were created to determine whether the baseline of these markers was predictive of DVT risk, APE risk, and mortality during the hospitalization stay (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3). The optimal cut-off value obtained from Youden’s index, areas under the curve (AUC), and the predictive accuracy of the markers are listed in Table 3.
The DVT, APE risk, and mortality were further analyzed after dividing the patients into paired groups, according to the optimal cut-off value of all studied markers. Moreover, there was a higher incidence of all outcomes for all the markers as seen in Table 4.
A multivariate analysis was used to determine the association between all markers, underlying risk factors, DVT, APE development risk, and mortality during the hospitalization. A high baseline value of all systemic inflammatory markers and CONUT Score was a strong independent predictor of all outcomes (for all p < 0.0001), as well as a lower baseline value of PNI (p < 0.0001). Moreover, as shown in Table 5, PAD (OR:2.10 p < 0.001; OR:2.12 p = 0.005; and OR:1.92 p < 0.001), malignancy (OR:2.70 p <0.001; OR:4.55 p < 0.002; and OR:2.42 p = 0.001), and tobacco (OR:2.01 p < 0.001; OR:2.32 p = 0.02; and OR:2.10 p < 0.001) were predictors of all outcomes. Furthermore, CKD (OR:1.95 p = 0.02 and OR:1.77 p = 0.01) was a predictor of APE risk and mortality (Table 5).

4. Discussion

The main result of this study is that inflammatory and nutritional indicators might predict the risk of DVT and APE, as well as death during hospitalization in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, BAP, malignancy, and tobacco were strong predictors of the three outcomes, and CKD was a predictor of APE risk and mortality. To our knowledge, this is the first study that analyzes all hematological markers (MLR, NLR, PLR, SII, SIRI, and AISI), and nutritional markers (PNI and CONUT Score), in the prediction of DVT, APE, and mortality, on 889 COVID-19 patients.
Numerous research studies have been published in the last two years on the predictive significance of inflammatory markers and the mortality of COVID-19 patients [45,46,48,49,50,51,58,59,60,61,62]. Among the analyzed markers, NLR has the greatest interest for researchers, whose optimal cut-off value varies between 6.883 and 11.57 [48,50,51,58,59,60]. Thus, in the work published by Citu et al. [48], which included 108 patients, it was demonstrated that NLR > 9.1 is a predictor of mortality (HR:3.85; p = 0.01), and the work published by Kudlinski et al. [51], resulted in the association of NLR > 11.57 (HR:2.12; p = 0.008) with mortality in the case of 285 COVID-19 patients. Additionally, Rose et al. [58] concluded that NLR > 11.38 is associated with mortality (OR: 1.82; p = 0.01), in a study conducted on a group of 454 COVID-19 patients. In terms of MLR, studies by Halmaciu et al. [45], Arbanasi et al. [46], and Citu et al. [48], resulted in the association of MLR > 0.54 (OR:6.49; p < 0.001), MLR > 0.45 (OR:5.51; p < 0.001) and MLR > 0.69 (HR:3.05; p = 0.02), respectively, with mortality.
In regard to the predictive role of nutritional markers, in the meta-analysis published by Hung et al. [52], in which 13 studies were included, and a total number of 4204 COVID-19 patients, it was demonstrated that PNI is a predictor of mortality. Moreover, research by Bodolea et al. [53] resulted in PNI > 28.05 (HR:0.91; p = 0.01), and a CONUT Score > 7.5 (HR:1.15; p = 0.01) becoming associated with mortality, in the case of 90 COVID-19 patients with the severe form.
In terms of all inflammatory and nutritional markers’ optimal cut-off value regarding the non-COVID APE patients, Efros et al. [38] demonstrated that an NLR > 5.12 (OR:2.82; p < 0.001) and malignancy (OR:1.72; p < 0.001) are predictors of 30-day mortality in 2072 patients with APE. Moreover, Yildirim et al. [63] concluded that a CONUT Score > 4 (OR:1.39; p = 0.01) was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, in 308 consecutive non-COVID patients. Also, Hayiroglu et al. [64] demonstrated that PNI > 38 (AUC:0.79; p < 0.001) is an independent prognostic factor for survival in 251 patients with APE.
Numerous recent studies have also shown the superior role of superficial and deep learning-based intelligence in the diagnosis of COVID-19 patients using X-rays and CT scans with higher accuracy than the standard diagnostic approach [65,66,67,68,69,70].
This work supplements the previous two studies published by our group of researchers, Arbanasi et al. and Halmaciu et al., which revealed the role of inflammatory markers in the prediction of ICU admission, IMV necessity, ALI risk, and mortality [45,46]. The hypercoagulability status of COVID-19 patients is well known, and the unpredictable evolution of these fragile patients, as well as the presence of comorbidities and risk factors, requires the establishment of prognostic tools and stratification of patients for better management of their health.
As established in our two previous studies, systemic inflammatory biomarkers based on the total number of neutrophils, monocytes, lymphocytes, and platelets outperform traditional inflammatory indicators including D-Dimers, interleukin-6, and fibrinogen. They are also commonly tested and have a low cost when compared to other inflammatory markers.
Among the study’s strengths are the inclusion of all hematological markers based on red cell blood, as well as nutritional markers and the inclusion of 889 patients. Regarding the study’s limitations, it should be noted that it is a retrospective study, without the possibility of knowing the antiviral medication received by the patients during hospitalization. Furthermore, the pre-admission medication was not accessible for inclusion in the statistical analysis. Another limitation is the inability to monitor outcomes recorded during hospitalization. As a result, in the future, we recommend undertaking prospective studies in which the rate of thromboembolic events is assessed both at 30 days and three months following discharge.

5. Conclusions

Higher MLR, NLR, PLR, SII, SIRI, AISI, CONUT Score, and lower PNI values at admission highly predict DVT risk, APE risk, and mortality in COVID-19 patients, according to our data. Furthermore, PAD, malignancy, and tobacco, all predicted all outcomes, while CKD predicts APE risk and mortality but not DVT risk.
Given the high risk of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients and the inexpensive cost of these inflammatory and nutritional indicators, they can be used to classify admission risk groups, improve patient care, and establish predictive patterns. However, regarding the study’s limitations (being a retrospective study, without the possibility of knowing the antiviral medication received by the patients or the pre-admission medication), we recommend undertaking prospective studies in which the rate of thromboembolic events is assessed both at 30 days and three months following discharge.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, software, A.V.M. and I.H.; Resources K.B.; Data curation, O.A.B., R.K. and R.M.M.; Investigation, formal analysis, V.V., B.A.S. and R.N.; Writing—original draft preparation, E.M.A. (Emil Marian Arbanasi) and E.M.A. (Eliza Marian Arbanasi); Writing—review and editing, R.C.F. and L.M.; Visualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, E.R.; Validation, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Mures County Emergency Hospital of Targu Mures, Romania (protocol code 10488, on 29 April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This paper was published with the support of the University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology “George Emil Palade” of Targu Mures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. COVID Live—Coronavirus Statistics—Worldometer. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on 16 October 2022).
  2. Mureșan, A.V.; Russu, E.; Arbănași, E.M.; Kaller, R.; Hosu, I.; Arbănași, E.M.; Voidăzan, S.T. Negative Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Kidney Disease Management—A Single-Center Experience in Romania. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Emil-Marian, A.; Reka, K.; Adrian, M.V.; Septimiu, V.; Eliza-Mihaela, A.; Eliza, R. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Vascular Surgery Unit activity in Central Romania. Front. Surg. 2022, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zaim, S.; Chong, J.H.; Sankaranarayanan, V.; Harky, A. COVID-19 and Multiorgan Response. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 2020, 45, 100618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rodrigues, T.S.; de Sá, K.S.; Ishimoto, A.Y.; Becerra, A.; Oliveira, S.; Almeida, L.; Gonçalves, A.V.; Perucello, D.B.; Andrade, W.A.; Castro, R.; et al. Inflammasomes are activated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with COVID-19 severity in patients. J. Exp. Med. 2020, 218, e20201707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Li, J.; Huang, D.Q.; Zou, B.; Yang, H.; Hui, W.Z.; Rui, F.; Yee, N.T.S.; Liu, C.; Nerurkar, S.N.; Kai, J.C.Y.; et al. Epidemiology of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes. J. Med. Virol. 2021, 93, 1449–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Petrilli, C.M.; Jones, S.A.; Yang, J.; Rajagopalan, H.; O’Donnell, L.; Chernyak, Y.; Tobin, K.A.; Cerfolio, R.J.; Francois, F.; Horwitz, L.I. Factors associated with hospital admission and critical illness among 5279 people with coronavirus disease 2019 in New York City: Prospective cohort study. BMJ 2020, 369, m1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gao, Y.-D.; Ding, M.; Dong, X.; Zhang, J.-J.; Azkur, A.K.; Azkur, D.; Gan, H.; Sun, Y.-L.; Fu, W.; Li, W.; et al. Risk factors for severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients: A review. Allergy 2021, 76, 428–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guan, W.J.; Ni, Z.Y.; Hu, Y.; Liang, W.H.; Qu, C.Q.; He, J.X.; Liu, L.; Shan, H.; Lei, C.L.; Hui, D.S.C.; et al. Clinical Characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1708–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alhazzani, W.; Evans, L.; Alshamsi, F.; Møller, M.H.; Ostermann, M.; Prescott, H.C.; Arabi, Y.M.; Loeb, M.; Gong, M.N.; Fan, E.; et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 49, e219–e234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. López-Collazo, E.; Avendaño-Ortiz, J.; Martín-Quirós, A.; Aguirre, L.A. Immune Response and COVID-19: A mirror image of Sepsis. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 16, 2479–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Klok, F.A.; Kruip, M.J.H.A.; van der Meer, N.J.M.; Arbous, M.S.; Gommers, D.A.M.P.J.; Kant, K.M.; Kaptein, F.H.J.; van Paassen, J.; Stals, M.A.M.; Huisman, M.V.; et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Thromb. Res. 2020, 191, 145–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Cui, S.; Chen, S.; Li, X.; Liu, S.; Wang, F. Prevalence of venous thromboembolism in patients with severe novel coronavirus pneumonia. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020, 18, 1421–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Jenner, W.J.; Gorog, D.A. Incidence of thrombotic complications in COVID-19. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 2021, 52, 999–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Middeldorp, S.; Coppens, M.; Van Haaps, T.F.; Foppen, M.; Vlaar, A.P.; Müller, M.C.A.; Bouman, C.C.S.; Beenen, L.F.M.; Kootte, R.S.; Heijmans, J.; et al. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020, 18, 1995–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Llitjos, J.-F.; Leclerc, M.; Chochois, C.; Monsallier, J.-M.; Ramakers, M.; Auvray, M.; Merouani, K. High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020, 18, 1743–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kaptein, F.; Stals, M.; Grootenboers, M.; Braken, S.; Burggraaf, J.; van Bussel, B.; Cannegieter, S.; Cate, H.T.; Endeman, H.; Gommers, D.; et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications and overall survival in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the second and first wave. Thromb. Res. 2021, 199, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stals, M.A.M.; Grootenboers, M.J.J.H.; van Guldener, C.; Kaptein, F.H.J.; Braken, S.J.E.; Chen, Q.; Chu, G.; van Driel, E.M.; Iglesias del Sol, A.I.; de Jonge, E.; et al. Risk of thrombotic complications in influenza versus COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost. 2021, 5, 412–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Al-Samkari, H.; Leaf, R.S.K.; Dzik, W.H.; Carlson, J.C.T.; Fogerty, A.E.; Waheed, A.; Goodarzi, K.; Bendapudi, P.K.; Bornikova, L.; Gupta, S.; et al. COVID-19 and coagulation: Bleeding and thrombotic manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Blood 2020, 136, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Helms, J.; Tacquard, C.; Severac, F.; Leonard-Lorant, I.; Ohana, M.; Delabranche, X.; Merdji, H.; Clere-Jehl, R.; Schenck, M.; Gandet, F.F.; et al. High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multicenter prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1089–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jiménez, D.; García-Sanchez, A.; Rali, P.; Muriel, A.; Bikdeli, B.; Ruiz-Artacho, P.; Le Mao, R.; Rodríguez, C.; Hunt, B.J.; Monreal, M. Incidence of VTE and Bleeding Among Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Chest 2020, 159, 1182–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Suh, Y.J.; Hong, H.; Ohana, M.; Bompard, F.; Revel, M.-P.; Valle, C.; Gervaise, A.; Poissy, J.; Susen, S.; Hékimian, G.; et al. Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology 2021, 298, E70–E80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lodigiani, C.; Iapichino, G.; Carenzo, L.; Cecconi, M.; Ferrazzi, P.; Sebastian, T.; Kucher, N.; Studt, J.-D.; Sacco, C.; Bertuzzi, A.; et al. Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb. Res. 2020, 191, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Klok, F.A.; Kruip, M.J.H.A.; van der Meer, N.J.M.; Arbous, M.S.; Gommers, D.; Kant, K.M.; Kaptein, F.H.J.; van Paassen, J.; Stals, M.A.M.; Huisman, M.V.; et al. Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis. Thromb. Res. 2020, 191, 148–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chocron, R.; Duceau, B.; Gendron, N.; Ezzouhairi, N.; Khider, L.; Trimaille, A.; Goudot, G.; Weizman, O.; Alsac, J.M.; Pommier, T.; et al. D-dimer at hospital admission for COVID-19 are associated with in-hospital mortality, independent of venous thromboembolism: Insights from a French multicenter cohort study. Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2021, 114, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zhang, L.; Yan, X.; Fan, Q.; Liu, H.; Liu, X.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Z. D-dimer levels on admission to predict in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020, 18, 1324–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Zhou, F.; Yu, T.; Du, R.; Fan, G.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Xiang, J.; Wang, Y.; Song, B.; Gu, X.; et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2020, 395, 1054–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tang, N.; Li, D.; Wang, X.; Sun, Z. Abnormal Coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020, 18, 844–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kwee, R.M.; Adams, H.J.A.; Kwee, T.C. Pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 and value of D-dimer assessment: A meta-analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2021, 31, 8168–8186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ranucci, M.; Ballotta, A.; Di Dedda, U.; Baryshnikova, E.; Poli, M.D.; Resta, M.; Falco, M.; Albano, G.; Menicanti, L. The procoagulant pattern of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. J. Thromb. Haemost. 2020, 18, 1747–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cipolloni, L.; Sessa, F.; Bertozzi, G.; Baldari, B.; Cantatore, S.; Testi, R.; D’Errico, S.; Di Mizio, G.; Asmundo, A.; Castorina, S.; et al. Preliminary Post-Mortem COVID-19 Evidence of Endothelial Injury and Factor VIII Hyperexpression. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pasqui, E.; de Donato, G.; Lazzeri, E.; Molino, C.; Galzerano, G.; Giubbolini, M.; Palasciano, G. High Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios Are Associated with a Higher Risk of Hemodialysis Vascular Access Failure. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kaller, R.; Arbănași, E.M.; Mureșan, A.V.; Voidăzan, S.; Arbănași, E.M.; Horváth, E.; Suciu, B.A.; Hosu, I.; Halmaciu, I.; Brinzaniuc, K.; et al. The Predictive Value of Systemic Inflammatory Markers, the Prognostic Nutritional Index, and Measured Vessels’ Diameters in Arteriovenous Fistula Maturation Failure. Life 2022, 12, 1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Mureșan, A.V.; Russu, E.; Arbănași, E.M.; Kaller, R.; Hosu, I.; Arbănași, E.M.; Voidăzan, S.T. The Predictive Value of NLR, MLR, and PLR in the Outcome of End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Arbănași, E.M.; Mureșan, A.V.; Coșarcă, C.M.; Kaller, R.; Bud, T.I.; Hosu, I.; Voidăzan, S.T.; Arbănași, E.M.; Russu, E. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Impact on Predicting Outcomes in Patients with Acute Limb Ischemia. Life 2022, 12, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Taurino, M.; Aloisi, F.; Del Porto, F.; Nespola, M.; Dezi, T.; Pranteda, C.; Rizzo, L.; Sirignano, P. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Could Predict Outcome in Patients Presenting with Acute Limb Ischemia. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Drugescu, A.; Roca, M.; Zota, I.M.; Costache, A.-D.; Gavril, O.I.; Gavril, R.S.; Vasilcu, T.F.; Mitu, O.; Esanu, I.M.; Roca, I.-C.; et al. Value of the Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio in Predicting CPET Performance in Patients with Stable CAD and Recent Elective PCI. Med. Kaunas Lith. 2022, 58, 814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Efros, O.; Halevi, T.B.; Meisel, E.; Soffer, S.; Barda, N.; Cohen, O.; Kenet, G.; Lubetsky, A. The Prognostic Role of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients Hospitalized with Acute Pulmonary Embolism. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Strazzulla, A.; Ben Halima, S.A.; Chouchane, I.; Rezek, M.; Stiebler, M.P.; Hamrouni, S.; Maalaoui, M.; Ghriss, N.; Guedec-Ghelfi, R.; Moini, C.; et al. The Predictive Value of Cell Blood Count Parameters to Diagnose Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Case Control Study. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arbănași, E.M.; Mureșan, A.V.; Arbănași, E.M.; Kaller, R.; Cojocaru, I.I.; Coșarcă, C.M.; Russu, E. The Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio’s Predictive Utility in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Systematic Review. J. Cardiovasc. Emergencies 2022, 8, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tomioka-Inagawa, R.; Nakane, K.; Enomoto, T.; Tomioka, M.; Taniguchi, T.; Ishida, T.; Ozawa, K.; Takagi, K.; Ito, H.; Takeuchi, S.; et al. The Impact of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio after Two Courses of Pembrolizumab for Oncological Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ginesu, G.C.; Paliogiannis, P.; Feo, C.F.; Cossu, M.L.; Scanu, A.M.; Fancellu, A.; Fois, A.G.; Zinellu, A.; Perra, T.; Veneroni, S.; et al. Inflammatory Indexes as Predictive Biomarkers of Postoperative Complications in Oncological Thoracic Surgery. Curr. Oncol. Tor. Ont. 2022, 29, 3425–3432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Iinuma, K.; Enomoto, T.; Kawada, K.; Fujimoto, S.; Ishida, T.; Takagi, K.; Nagai, S.; Ito, H.; Kawase, M.; Nakai, C.; et al. Utility of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, and Systemic Immune Inflammation Index as Prognostic, Predictive Biomarkers in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gawiński, C.; Michalski, W.; Mróz, A.; Wyrwicz, L. Correlation between Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio (LMR), Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR), Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) and Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs) in Left-Sided Colorectal Cancer Patients. Biology 2022, 11, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Halmaciu, I.; Arbănași, E.M.; Kaller, R.; Mureșan, A.V.; Arbănași, E.M.; Bacalbasa, N.; Suciu, B.A.; Cojocaru, I.I.; Runcan, A.I.; Grosu, F.; et al. Chest CT Severity Score and Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers as Predictors of the Need for Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and of COVID-19 Patients’ Mortality. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Arbănași, E.M.; Halmaciu, I.; Kaller, R.; Mureșan, A.V.; Arbănași, E.M.; Suciu, B.A.; Coșarcă, C.M.; Cojocaru, I.I.; Melinte, R.M.; Russu, E. Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers and Chest CT Findings as Predictors of Acute Limb Ischemia Risk, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Parthasarathi, A.; Padukudru, S.; Arunachal, S.; Basavaraj, C.K.; Krishna, M.T.; Ganguly, K.; Upadhyay, S.; Anand, M.P. The Role of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Risk Stratification and Prognostication of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vaccines 2022, 10, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Citu, C.; Gorun, O.M.; Motoc, A.; Citu, I.M.; Gorun, F.; Malita, D. Correlation of Lung Damage on CT Scan with Laboratory Inflammatory Markers in COVID-19 Patients: A Single-Center Study from Romania. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cocoş, R.; Mahler, B.; Turcu-Stiolica, A.; Stoichiță, A.; Ghinet, A.; Shelby, E.-S.; Bohîlțea, L.C. Risk of Death in Comorbidity Subgroups of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Inferred by Routine Laboratory Markers of Systemic Inflammation on Admission: A Retrospective Study. Viruses 2022, 14, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Regolo, M.; Vaccaro, M.; Sorce, A.; Stancanelli, B.; Colaci, M.; Natoli, G.; Russo, M.; Alessandria, I.; Motta, M.; Santangelo, N.; et al. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) Is a Promising Predictor of Mortality and Admission to Intensive Care Unit of COVID-19 Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kudlinski, B.; Zgoła, D.; Stolińska, M.; Murkos, M.; Kania, J.; Nowak, P.; Noga, A.; Wojciech, M.; Zaborniak, G.; Zembron-Lacny, A. Systemic Inflammatory Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hung, K.-C.; Ko, C.-C.; Wang, L.-K.; Liu, P.-H.; Chen, I.-W.; Huang, Y.-T.; Sun, C.-K. Association of Prognostic Nutritional Index with Severity and Mortality of Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Bodolea, C.; Nemes, A.; Avram, L.; Craciun, R.; Coman, M.; Ene-Cocis, M.; Ciobanu, C.; Crisan, D. Nutritional Risk Assessment Scores Effectively Predict Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with Severe COVID-19. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Hernandez-Garcia, E.; Chrysikou, E.; Kalea, A.Z. The Interplay between Housing Environmental Attributes and Design Exposures and Psychoneuroimmunology Profile—An Exploratory Review and Analysis Paper in the Cancer Survivors’ Mental Health Morbidity Context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ali, A.M.; Kunugi, H. Approaches to Nutritional Screening in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. dos Santos, D.M.C.; Liu, L.; Gerisch, M.; Hellmuth, J.C.; von Bergwelt-Baildon, M.; Kunz, W.G.; Theurich, S. Risk Stratification Based on a Pattern of Immunometabolic Host Factors Is Superior to Body Mass Index—Based Prediction of COVID-19-Associated Respiratory Failure. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gregoriano, C.; Voelkle, M.; Koch, D.; Hauser, S.I.; Kutz, A.; Mueller, B.; Schuetz, P. Association of Different Malnutrition Parameters and Clinical Outcomes among COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rose, J.; Suter, F.; Furrer, E.; Sendoel, A.; Stüssi-Helbling, M.; Huber, L.C. Neutrophile-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) Identifies Patients with Coronavirus Infectious Disease 2019 (COVID-19) at High Risk for Deterioration and Mortality—A Retrospective, Monocentric Cohort Study. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. la Rosa, N.L.-D.; Cervantes-Alvarez, E.; Méndez-Guerrero, O.; Gutierrez-Gallardo, M.A.; Kershenobich, D.; Navarro-Alvarez, N. Time-Dependent Changes of Laboratory Parameters as Independent Predictors of All-Cause Mortality in COVID-19 Patients. Biology 2022, 11, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vuillaume, L.A.; Le Borgne, P.; Alamé, K.; Lefebvre, F.; Bérard, L.; Delmas, N.; Cipolat, L.; Gennai, S.; Bilbault, P.; Lavoignet, C.-E.; et al. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Early Variation of NLR to Predict In-Hospital Mortality and Severity in ED Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fois, A.G.; Paliogiannis, P.; Scano, V.; Cau, S.; Babudieri, S.; Perra, R.; Ruzzittu, G.; Zinellu, E.; Pirina, P.; Carru, C.; et al. The Systemic Inflammation Index on Admission Predicts In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients. Molecules 2020, 25, 5725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Simon, P.; Le Borgne, P.; Lefevbre, F.; Cipolat, L.; Remillon, A.; Dib, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Gardeur, I.; Sabah, J.; Kepka, S.; et al. Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) Is Not a Predicting Marker of Severity but of Mortality in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Multicenter Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Yıldırım, B.; Karakaya, Z.; Acar, E.; Demir, A.; Gökçek, K.; Gökçek, A.; Doğan, V.; Biteker, M. Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score predicts in-hospital mortality in acute pulmonary embolism. Med. Princ. Pract. 2022, 31, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hayıroğlu, M.; Keskin, M.; Keskin, T.; Uzun, A.O.; Altay, S.; Kaya, A.; Öz, A.; Çinier, G.; Güvenç, T.S.; Kozan. A Novel Independent Survival Predictor in Pulmonary Embolism: Prognostic Nutritional Index. Clin. Appl. Thromb. 2018, 24, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Kaya, Y.; Yiner, Z.; Kaya, M.; Kuncan, F. A new approach to COVID-19 detection from x-ray images using angle transformation with GoogleNet and LSTM. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2022, 33, 124011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Eken, S. A topic-based hierarchical publish/subscribe messaging middleware for COVID-19 detection in X-ray image and its metadata. Soft Comput. 2020, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ayadi, M.; Ksibi, A.; Al-Rasheed, A.; Soufiene, B.O. COVID-AleXception: A Deep Learning Model Based on a Deep Feature Concatenation Approach for the Detection of COVID-19 from Chest X-ray Images. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wu, C.; Khishe, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Karim, S.H.T.; Rashid, T.A. Evolving deep convolutional neutral network by hybrid sine–cosine and extreme learning machine for real-time COVID19 diagnosis from X-ray images. Soft Comput. 2021, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nair, R.; Alhudhaif, A.; Koundal, D.; Doewes, R.I.; Sharma, P. Deep learning-based COVID-19 detection system using pulmonary CT scans. Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2021, 29, 2716–2727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yilmaz, A. Diagnosing COVID-19 from X-Ray images with using multi-channel CNN architecture. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ. 2021, 36, 1761–1773. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The ROC curve analysis concerning DVT risk (A) for the MLR (AUC: 0.824; p < 0.0001), (B) for the NLR (AUC: 0.836; p < 0.0001), (C) for the PLR (AUC: 0.802; p < 0.0001), (D) for the SII (AUC: 0.805; p < 0.0001), (E) for the SIRI (AUC: 0.811; p < 0.0001), (F) for the AISI (AUC: 0.784; p < 0.0001), (G) for the PNI (AUC: 0.803; p < 0.0001), and (H) for the CONUT Score (AUC: 0.826; p < 0.0001).
Figure 1. The ROC curve analysis concerning DVT risk (A) for the MLR (AUC: 0.824; p < 0.0001), (B) for the NLR (AUC: 0.836; p < 0.0001), (C) for the PLR (AUC: 0.802; p < 0.0001), (D) for the SII (AUC: 0.805; p < 0.0001), (E) for the SIRI (AUC: 0.811; p < 0.0001), (F) for the AISI (AUC: 0.784; p < 0.0001), (G) for the PNI (AUC: 0.803; p < 0.0001), and (H) for the CONUT Score (AUC: 0.826; p < 0.0001).
Diagnostics 12 02757 g001
Figure 2. The ROC curve analysis concerning APE risk (A) for the MLR (AUC: 0.766; p < 0.0001), (B) for the NLR (AUC: 0.801; p < 0.0001), (C) for the PLR (AUC: 0.734; p < 0.0001), (D) for the SII (AUC: 0.761; p < 0.0001), (E) for the SIRI (AUC: 0.783; p < 0.0001), (F) for the AISI (AUC: 0.750; p < 0.0001), (G) for the PNI (AUC: 0.864; p < 0.0001), and (H) for the CONUT Score (AUC: 0.892; p < 0.0001).
Figure 2. The ROC curve analysis concerning APE risk (A) for the MLR (AUC: 0.766; p < 0.0001), (B) for the NLR (AUC: 0.801; p < 0.0001), (C) for the PLR (AUC: 0.734; p < 0.0001), (D) for the SII (AUC: 0.761; p < 0.0001), (E) for the SIRI (AUC: 0.783; p < 0.0001), (F) for the AISI (AUC: 0.750; p < 0.0001), (G) for the PNI (AUC: 0.864; p < 0.0001), and (H) for the CONUT Score (AUC: 0.892; p < 0.0001).
Diagnostics 12 02757 g002
Figure 3. The ROC curve analysis concerning mortality (A) for the MLR (AUC: 0.794; p < 0.0001), (B) for the NLR (AUC: 0.868; p < 0.0001), (C) for the PLR (AUC: 0.819; p < 0.0001), (D) for the SII (AUC: 0.836; p < 0.0001), (E) for the SIRI (AUC: 0.801; p < 0.0001), (F) for the AISI (AUC: 0.780; p < 0.0001), (G) for the PNI (AUC: 0.903; p < 0.0001), and (H) for the CONUT Score (AUC: 0.913; p < 0.0001).
Figure 3. The ROC curve analysis concerning mortality (A) for the MLR (AUC: 0.794; p < 0.0001), (B) for the NLR (AUC: 0.868; p < 0.0001), (C) for the PLR (AUC: 0.819; p < 0.0001), (D) for the SII (AUC: 0.836; p < 0.0001), (E) for the SIRI (AUC: 0.801; p < 0.0001), (F) for the AISI (AUC: 0.780; p < 0.0001), (G) for the PNI (AUC: 0.903; p < 0.0001), and (H) for the CONUT Score (AUC: 0.913; p < 0.0001).
Diagnostics 12 02757 g003
Table 1. Inflammatory and Nutritional Markers utilized in the study.
Table 1. Inflammatory and Nutritional Markers utilized in the study.
Inflammatory Markers
Monocyte-Lymphocyte ratio (MLR) total   number   of   monocytes total   number   of   lymphocytes
Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) total   number   of   monocytes total   number   of   lymphocytes
Platelets-Lymphocyte ratio (PLR) total   number   of   platelets total   number   of   lymphocytes
Systemic Inflammatory Index (SII) total   number   of   neutrophils   ×   total   number   of   platelets total   number   of   lymphocytes
Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) total   number   of   neutrophils   ×   total   number   of   monocytes total   number   of   lymphocytes
Aggregate Index of Systemic Inflammation (AISI) total   number   of   neutrophils   ×   total   number   of   platelets   ×   total   number   of   monocytes total   number   of   lymphocytes
Nutritional Markers
Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI)[10 * serum albumin (g/dL)] + [0.005 × total number of lymphocytes/µL)]
CONUT Score
NormalMildModerateSevere
Albumin g/dL≥3.503.00–3.492.50–2.99<2.50
Score0246
Total Lymphocytes count /µL≥16001200–1599800–1199<800
Score0123
Total Cholesterol mg/dL≥180140–179100–139<100
Score0123
Total Score0–12–45–89–12
MLR = monocyte to lymphocyte ratio; NLR = neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelets to lymphocyte ratio; SII = systemic inflammatory index; SIRI = systemic inflammation response index; AISI = aggregate index of systemic inflammation; PNI = prognostic nutritional index.
Table 2. The baseline characteristics data of all patients divided according to mortality.
Table 2. The baseline characteristics data of all patients divided according to mortality.
VariablesAll Patients
n = 889
Survivors
n = 746
Non-Survivors
n = 143
p Value
(OR; CI 95%)
Age mean ± SD (min-max)70.5 ± 12.9
(21–101)
70.17 ± 12.74
(21–101)
72.18 ± 13.80
(24–97)
0.10
Male/Female sex no. (%)474 (53.32%)
415 (46.68%)
397 (53.22%)
349 (46.78%)
77 (53.85%)
66 (46.15%)
0.89
(1.02; 0.71–1.46)
Comorbidities and Risk Factors
AH, no. (%)735 (82.67%)615 (82.43%)120 (83.91%)0.66
(1.11; 0.68–1.80)
IHD, no. (%)513 (57.70%)427 (57.23%)86 (60.13%)0.52
(1.12; 0.78–1.62)
AF, no. (%)252 (28.34%)199 (26.67%)53 (37.06%)0.01
(1.61; 1.11–2.35)
CHF, no. (%)215 (24.18%)174 (23.32%)41 (28.67%)0.17
(1.32; 0.88–1.97)
MI, no. (%)170 (19.12%)133 (17.82%)37 (25.87%)0.02
(1.60; 1.05–2.44)
T2D, no. (%)268 (30.14%)223 (29.89%)45 (31.46%)0.70
(1.07; 0.73–1.58)
CKD, no. (%)141 (15.86%)108 (14.47%)33 (23.07%)0.01
(1.77; 1.14–2.74)
PAD, no. (%)125 (14.06%)91 (12.19%)34 (23.77%)0.0003
(2.24; 1.44–3.49)
Malignancy, no. (%)74 (8.32%)52 (6.97%)22 (15.38%)0.001
(2.42; 1.42–4.14)
Tobacco, no. (%)256 (28.79%)195 (26.13%)61 (42.65%)0.0001
(2.10; 1.45–3.04)
Obesity, no. (%)146 (16.42%)112 (15.01%)34 (23.77%)0.01
(1.76; 1.14–2.72)
Dyslipidemia, no. (%)172 (19.34%)132 (17.69%)40 (27.97%)0.004
(1.80; 1.19–2.7552)
Nutritional Status
PNI, median [Q1–Q3]42.1 [36.2–47.7]43.83 [38.6–48.75]32.05 [28.97–35.4]<0.0001
CONUT Score,
median [Q1–Q3]
3 [2,3,4,5]3 [1,2,3,4]7 [6,7,8,9]<0.0001
Normal, no. (%)192 (21.59%)192 (21.59%)-0.001
Mild, no. (%)397 (44.65%)386 (51.74%)11 (7.69%)<0.0001
Moderate, no. (%)259 (29.13%)164 (21.98%)95 (66.43%)<0.0001
Severe, no. (%)41 (4.61%)4 (0.53%)37 (25.87%)<0.0001
Laboratory Data
Hemoglobin g/dL
median [Q1–Q3]
13.1 [11.2–14.4]13.2 [11.4–14.49]12.4 [10.2–14.15]0.001
Hematocrit %
median [Q1–Q3]
39.8 [34.3–43.8]40.31 [34.95–43.95]36.8 [30.92–42.4]0.0002
Glucose mg/dL
median [Q1–Q3]
114.9 [95–144]113.8 [94.92–142]124.4 [99–154.5]0.006
Cholesterol mg/dL
median [Q1–Q3]
177.3 [146–210.9]180.1 [149.75–213.1]158.5 [135.2–194.85]<0.0001
Triglyceride mg/dL
median [Q1–Q3]
119.1 [91.7–166.5]120.25 [94–167.81]117.3 [87.25–150.6]0.06
Albumin,
median [Q1–Q3]
3.48 [2.94–3.96]3.64 [3.1–4]2.8 [2.47–3.13]<0.0001
GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)
median [Q1–Q3]
75.39 [56.44–92.24]75.63 [56.08–91.84]74.38 [58.7–93.35]0.43
BUN mg/dL
median [Q1–Q3]
70.2 [39.7–173.7]63.84 [38.7–167.8]134.2 [52.2–215.1]<0.0001
Creatinine mg/dL
median [Q1–Q3]
1.52 [0.89–5.91]1.30 [0.88–5.78]2.98 [1.1–6.9]<0.0001
Neutrophils × 10³/µL
median [Q1–Q3]
8.1 [5.53–12.43]7.58 [5.27–11.28]12.2 [8.79–16.27]<0.0001
Lymphocytes × 10³/µL
median [Q1–Q3]
1.32 [0.9–1.95]1.5 [1.06–2.01]0.66 [0.41–1.02]<0.0001
Monocyte × 10³/µL
median [Q1–Q3]
0.73 [0.5–1.09]0.73 [0.5–1.06]0.72 [0.45–1.14]0.47
PLT × 10³/µL
median [Q1–Q3]
237 [185.3–302]235.7 [187–294]245 [179.5–333.5]0.18
Potassium
median [Q1–Q3]
4.29 [3.85–5.16]4.3 [3.86–5.05]4.27 [3.79–5.59]0.34
Sodium
median [Q1–Q3]
139 [135–142]139 [135.4–142]138.1 [134.9–142]0.11
MLR, median [Q1–Q3]0.54 [0.32–0.91]0.47 [0.31–0.79]1.14 [0.66–1.68]<0.0001
NLR, median [Q1–Q3]6.63 [3.12–12.75]5.38 [2.81–9.62]19.74 [11.29–29.61]<0.0001
PLR, median [Q1–Q3]167.89 [114.9–280.2]156.22 [110.37–238.16]363.16 [244.87–616.93]<0.0001
SII, median [Q1–Q3]1462.5 [675.8–3205.02]1235.42 [633.4–2240.9]4623 [2319–8087.5]<0.0001
SIRI, median [Q1–Q3]4.65 [1.91–10.31]3.58 [1.64–8.40]12.07 [7.1–22.08]<0.0001
AISI, median [Q1–Q3]1072.12 [380.4–2603.4]798.8 [354.1–2108.1]3151.3 [1454.48–5823.5]<0.0001
Outcomes
DVT, no. (%)191 (21.48%)91 (12.19%)100 (69.93%)<0.0001
(16.73; 11–25.45)
APE, no. (%)62 (6.97%)24 (3.21%)38 (26.57%)<0.0001
(10.88; 6.27–18.88)
DVT APE, no. (%)38 (4.27%)11 (1.47%)27 (18.88%)<0.0001
(15.55; 7.51–32.2)
Length of hospital stay, median [Q1–Q3]8 [6–11]8 [6–12]8 [6–12]0.26
AH = arterial hypertension; IHD = ischemic heart disease; AF = atrial fibrillation; CHF = chronic heart failure; MI = myocardial infarction; T2D = type 2 diabetes; PAD = peripheral arterial disease; CKD = chronic kidney disease; MLR = monocyte to lymphocyte ratio; NLR = neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelets to lymphocyte ratio; SII = systemic inflammatory index; SIRI = systemic inflammation response index; AISI = aggregate index of systemic inflammation; PNI = prognostic nutritional index; CONUT = controlling nutritional status; GFR = glomerular filtration rate; DVT = deep vein thrombosis; APE = acute pulmonary embolism.
Table 3. The AUC of the ROC curve, 95% confidence interval, sensitivity, and specificity of the inflammatory and nutritional markers.
Table 3. The AUC of the ROC curve, 95% confidence interval, sensitivity, and specificity of the inflammatory and nutritional markers.
VariablesCut-OffAUCStd. Error95% CISensitivitySpecificityp Value
Deep Vein Thrombosis
MLR0.780.8240.0200.785–0.86377%76.2%<0.0001
NLR9.630.8360.0170.802–0.87077%77.8%<0.0001
PLR230.670.8020.0180.766–0.83972.8%76.8%<0.0001
SII1890.450.8050.0190.768–0.84279.1%71.2%<0.0001
SIRI6.910.8110.0190.775–0.84878%72.3%<0.0001
AISI1605.40.7840.0200.745–0.82371.2%71.6%<0.0001
PNI40.120.8030.0170.769–0.83766.8%72.8%<0.0001
CONUT Score5.50.8260.0160.794–0.85861.3%85.8%<0.0001
Acute Pulmonary Embolism
MLR0.810.7660.0340.699–0.83271%72.1%<0.0001
NLR13.670.8010.0310.740–0.86167.7%81%<0.0001
PLR207.060.7340.0360.664–0.80474.2%61.3%<0.0001
SII1839.910.7610.0340.694–0.82875.8%61.9%<0.0001
SIRI8.20.7830.0310.723–0.84371%70%<0.0001
AISI2769.850.7500.0340.684–0.81661.3%79.1%<0.0001
PNI35.220.8640.0250.814–0.91482.6%72.6%<0.0001
CONUT Score6.50.8920.0220.850–0.93579%89.5%<0.0001
Mortality
MLR0.780.7940.0210.753–0.83571.3%74%<0.0001
NLR9.40.8680.0150.838–0.89881.8%74.4%<0.0001
PLR266.90.8190.0210.778–0.86072%81.1%<0.0001
SII2208.950.8360.0180.800–0.87179.7%74.4%<0.0001
SIRI7.470.8010.0190.764–0.83972%72.1%<0.0001
AISI1696.180.7800.0210.740–0.82172%70.9%<0.0001
PNI36.570.9030.0140.874–0.93183.4%84.6%<0.0001
CONUT Score4.50.9130.0120.889–0.93792.3%77.5%<0.0001
MLR = monocyte to lymphocyte ratio; NLR = neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelets to lymphocyte ratio; SII = systemic inflammatory index; SIRI = systemic inflammation response index; AISI = aggregate index of systemic inflammation; PNI = prognostic nutritional index; CONUT = controlling nutritional status.
Table 4. Univariate analysis of inflammatory and nutritional markers and outcomes.
Table 4. Univariate analysis of inflammatory and nutritional markers and outcomes.
DVTAPEMortality
Low-MLR vs.
High-MLR
47/595 (7.9%) vs. 144/294 (48.98%)
p < 0.0001
18/613 (2.94%) vs. 44/276 (15.94%)
p < 0.0001
42/595 (7.06%) vs. 101/294 (34.35%)
p < 0.0001
Low-NLR vs.
High-NLR
44/587 (7.5%) vs. 147/302 (48.68%)
p < 0.0001
20/690 (2.9%) vs. 42/199 (21.11%)
p < 0.0001
26/581 (4.48%) vs. 117/308 (37.99%)
p < 0.0001
Low-PLR vs.
High-PLR
52/581 (8.95%) vs. 139/308 (45.13%)
p < 0.0001
16/523 (3.06%) vs. 46/366 (12.57%)
p < 0.0001
40/645 (6.20%) vs. 103/244 (42.21%)
p < 0.0001
Low-SII vs.
High-SII
40/537 (7.45%) vs. 151/352 (42.9%)
p < 0.0001
15/527 (2.85%) vs. 47/362 (12.98%)
p < 0.0001
29/584 (4.97%) vs. 114/305 (37.38%)
p < 0.0001
Low-SIRI vs.
High-SIRI
42/547 (7.68%) vs. 149/342 (43.57%)
p < 0.0001
18/597 (3.02%) vs. 44/292 (15.07%)
p < 0.0001
40/578 (6.92%) vs. 103/311 (33.12%)
p < 0.0001
Low-AISI vs.
High-AISI
55/555 (9.91%) vs. 136/334 (31.44%)
p < 0.0001
24/678 (3.54%) vs. 38/211 (18.01%)
p < 0.0001
40/569 (7.03%) vs. 103/320 (32.19%)
p < 0.0001
Low-PNI vs.
High-PNI
52/519 (10.02%) vs. 139/370 (37.57%)
p < 0.0001
17/700 (2.43%) vs. 45/189 (23.81%)
p < 0.0001
22/644 (3.42%) vs. 121/245 (43.39%)
p < 0.0001
Low-CONUT Score vs.
High-CONUT Score
74/673 (11%) vs. 117/216 (54.17%)
p < 0.0001
13/753 (1.73%) vs. 49/136 (36.03%)
p < 0.0001
11/589 (1.87%) vs. 132/300 (44%)
p < 0.0001
MLR = monocyte to lymphocyte ratio; NLR = neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelets to lymphocyte ratio; SII = systemic inflammatory index; SIRI = systemic inflammation response index; AISI = aggregate index of systemic inflammation; PNI = prognostic nutritional index; CONUT = controlling nutritional status.
Table 5. Multivariate analysis for predictors of DVT and APE risk, and mortality during the hospitalization stay.
Table 5. Multivariate analysis for predictors of DVT and APE risk, and mortality during the hospitalization stay.
Deep Vein ThrombosisAcute Pulmonary EmbolismMortality
OR95% CIp-ValueOR95% CIp-valueOR95% CIp-Value
Age > 70
CHF
AF
1.080.78–1.500.621.260.74–2.160.381.450.98–2.100.052
1.140.85–1.510.360.880.50–1.560.671.140.84–1.550.38
1.110.84–1.460.441.050.67–1.640.821.230.92–1.460.15
MI0.960.65–1.430.870.780.39–1.520.471.350.89–2.040.14
CKD1.190.78–1.820.401.951.07–3.550.021.771.14–2.750.01
PAD2.101.52–2.91<0.0012.121.07–3.560.0051.921.34–2.76<0.001
Malignancy2.701.65–4.42<0.0014.552.53–8.18<0.0012.421.42–4.140.001
Tobacco2.011.44–2.81<0.0012.321.37–3.910.022.101.45–3.04<0.001
Obesity0.660.44–1.050.0530.780.41–1.510.470.780.50–1.220.28
Dyslipidemia1.060.70–1.590.381.420.77–2.620.251.190.76–1.850.44
high-MLR11.197.68–16.29<0.0018.965.11–15.69<0.0016.894.64–10.23<0.001
high-NLR11.707.99–17.13<0.00110.505.86–18.8<0.00113.078.29–20.62<0.001
high-PLR8.365.82–12.02<0.0016.263.54–11.07<0.00111.047.34–16.62<0.001
high-SII9.336.35–13.71<0.0015.092.80–9.26<0.00111.427.36–17.72<0.001
high-SIRI9.286.34–13.58<0.0015.703.23–10.07<0.0016.664.47–9.92<0.001
high-AISI6.244.38–8.89<0.0015.983.49–10.24<0.0016.274.21–9.34<0.001
low-PNI5.403.78–7.71<0.00112.556.98–22.56<0.00127.5816.84–45.19<0.001
high-CONUT Score9.566.67–13.71<0.00132.0616.72–61.44<0.00141.2821.8–78.19<0.001
AF = atrial fibrillation; CHF = chronic heart failure; MI = myocardial infarction; PAD = peripheral arterial disease; CKD = chronic kidney disease; MLR = monocyte to lymphocyte ratio; NLR = neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelets to lymphocyte ratio; SII = systemic inflammatory index; SIRI = systemic inflammation response index; AISI = aggregate index of systemic inflammation; PNI = prognostic nutritional index; CONUT = controlling nutritional status.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mureșan, A.V.; Hălmaciu, I.; Arbănași, E.M.; Kaller, R.; Arbănași, E.M.; Budișcă, O.A.; Melinte, R.M.; Vunvulea, V.; Filep, R.C.; Mărginean, L.; et al. Prognostic Nutritional Index, Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score, and Inflammatory Biomarkers as Predictors of Deep Vein Thrombosis, Acute Pulmonary Embolism, and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2757. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112757

AMA Style

Mureșan AV, Hălmaciu I, Arbănași EM, Kaller R, Arbănași EM, Budișcă OA, Melinte RM, Vunvulea V, Filep RC, Mărginean L, et al. Prognostic Nutritional Index, Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score, and Inflammatory Biomarkers as Predictors of Deep Vein Thrombosis, Acute Pulmonary Embolism, and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(11):2757. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112757

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mureșan, Adrian Vasile, Ioana Hălmaciu, Emil Marian Arbănași, Réka Kaller, Eliza Mihaela Arbănași, Ovidiu Aurelian Budișcă, Răzvan Marian Melinte, Vlad Vunvulea, Rareș Cristian Filep, Lucian Mărginean, and et al. 2022. "Prognostic Nutritional Index, Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score, and Inflammatory Biomarkers as Predictors of Deep Vein Thrombosis, Acute Pulmonary Embolism, and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients" Diagnostics 12, no. 11: 2757. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112757

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop