| Title |
Risk Stratification in Patients with Complicated Parapneumonic Effusions and Empyema Using the RAPID Score
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lung, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00408-018-0146-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sunkaru Touray, Rahul N. Sood, Daniel Lindstrom, Jonathan Holdorf, Sumera Ahmad, Daniel B. Knox, Andres F. Sosa |
| Abstract |
Complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema are a leading cause of morbidity in the United States with over 1 million admissions annually and a mortality rate that remains high in spite of recent advances in diagnosis and treatment. The identification of high risk patients is crucial for improved management and the provision of cost-effective care. The RAPID score is a scoring system comprised of the following variables: renal function, age, purulence, infection source, and dietary factors and has been shown to predict outcomes in patients with pleural space infections. In a single center retrospective study, we evaluated 98 patients with complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema who had tube thoracostomy (with or without Intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy) and assessed treatment success rates, mortality, length of hospital stay, and direct hospitalization costs stratified by three RAPID score categories: low-risk (0-2), medium risk (3-4), and high-risk (5-7) groups. Treatment success rate was 71%, and the 90 day mortality rate was 12%. There was a positive-graded association between the low, medium and high RAPID score categories and mortality, (5.3%, 8.3% and 22.6%, respectively), length of hospital stay (10, 21, 19 days, respectively), and direct hospitalization costs ($19,909, $36,317 and $43,384, respectively). Our findings suggest that the RAPID score is a robust tool which could be used to identify patients with complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema who may be at an increased risk of mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and who may incur a higher cost of treatment. Randomized controlled trials identifying the most effective initial treatment modality for medium- and high-risk patients are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 24% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 52% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2019.
All research outputs
#15,542,971
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Lung
#569
of 895 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,390
of 331,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 895 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.