alexa The DECAF Score is a Superior Predictor of In-hospital Death than the BAP-65 Score | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2472-1247
Journal of Clinical Respiratory Diseases and Care
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

The DECAF Score is a Superior Predictor of In-hospital Death than the BAP-65 Score

Echevarria C1,2*, Steer J1 and Bourke SC1,2

1Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Respiratory Medicine Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

2Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

Corresponding Author:
Carlos Echevarria
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Respiratory Medicine, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 191 293 4026
Fax: +44 191 293 4026
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: April 22, 2016; Accepted Date: May 05, 2016; Published Date: May 09, 2016

Citation: Echevarria C, Steer J, Bourke SC (2016) The DECAF Score is a Superior Predictor of In-hospital Death than the BAP-65 Score. J Clin Respir Dis Care 2:111. doi: 10.4172/2472-1247.1000111

Copyright: © 2016 Echevarria C, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Clinical Respiratory Diseases and Care

Tabet and others describe the use of the BAP-65 score to predict mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in 980 patients admitted with an AECOPD to two Lebanese hospitals over an eightyear period [1]. In their introduction they state that the use of riskstratification tools has not been recommended in practice in patients with AECOPD. However, in the British Thoracic Society COPD audit report, it is recommended that the DECAF score is documented routinely in all patients admitted with an AECOPD [2].

Tabet and others recommend the use of BAP-65 over DECAF, as scoring of BAP-65 is “consistent and generalisable”. However, DECAF showed consistent and excellent discrimination in the derivation and validation studies (area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve 0.86 and 0.83 respectively) [3,4] and outperformed BAP-65, which performed inconsistently (AUROC 0.65 and 0.77 respectively). One potential weakness of BAP-65 is that the assessment of mental status may vary, despite their claim that the BAP-65 indices are objective. Furthermore, the provision of salbutamol nebulisers by paramedics prior to admission can elevate pulse rate, and reduce its prognostic power. In the DECAF derivation study [3], pulse rate was not associated with in-hospital mortality.

The authors raise concerns regarding the costs of performing investigations to calculate the DECAF score. In common with the GOLD COPD guidelines, we would recommend that chest radiograph, electrocardiogram, full blood count and arterial blood sampling are performed in the assessment of this population [5].

Finally, the authors also state that there are no precise risk stratification tools to help clinicians assess the severity of an AECOPD. In fact, there are multiple tools that perform well in this population, though DECAF has been shown to be superior to alternatives [4]. This is important to acknowledge, as readers are left with the impression that clinicians must rely on judgment alone, which is less accurate than using clinical tools [6].

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Article Usage

  • Total views: 7988
  • [From(publication date):
    June-2016 - Nov 24, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 7911
  • PDF downloads : 77
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords