Please wait a minute...
IMAGE/TABLE DETAILS
Analysis of risk factors for poor prognosis in patients with hospital-acquired bacterial meningitis and establishment of nomogram prediction model
YANG Mei, LIAO Qi'an, TAN Quanhui, LI Tingting, ZHANG Yi, CHEN Jie, TANG Zhenghao
Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice    2025, 24 (04): 441-448.   DOI: 10.16150/j.1671-2870.2025.04.011
Abstract   (27 HTML2 PDF(pc) (719KB)(4)  

Objective To explore the risk factors for poor prognosis in patients with hospital-acquired bacterial me-ningitis (HABM) and to establish a nomogram model to predict its occurrence. Methods A total of 110 patients with HABM admitted to Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020 were consecutively enrolled. Based on survival status at discharge, they were divided into a death group (n=22) and a survival group (n=88). Subsequently, 110 patients were randomly divided into a training cohort (n=77) and a validation cohort (n=33). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify risk factors for poor prognosis in patients with HABM. A nomogram model was constructed based on these risk factors. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the model discrimination, and the calibration curve was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the model. Results Based on the LASSO regression, seven factors were identified: gram-positive staining of microorga-nisms in cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) culture, elevated neutrophil count on routine blood tests, elevated procalcitonin, elevated CSF protein, decreased prothrombin time, positive blood culture, and history of lumbar drainage. A nomogram prediction model for poor prognosis in HABM patients was established. The areas under the ROC curves for the training cohort and the validation cohort were 0.931 and 0.862, respectively. The calibration plots demonstrated that the calibration curves showed good agreement with the ideal curves, indicating an excellent goodness of fit. Conclusions The risk factor-based nomogram model established in this study demonstrates good predictability, consistency, and clinical applicability for predicting mortality in hospitalized HABM patients, supporting clinicians in the preliminary assessment of the risk of poor prognosis.


Characteristic Cohort P-value Characteristic Cohort P value
Training Cohort
(n=77)
Internal Test Cohort
(n=33)
Training Cohort
(n=77)
Internal Test Cohort
(n=33)
Age(years) 57 ± 12 55 ± 14 0.524 Extraspinal diversion(%) 0.431
Sex(%) 0.861 No 70 (90.9%) 32 (97.0%)
Female 27 (35.1%) 11 (33.3%) Yes 7 (9.1%) 1 (3.0%)
Male 50 (64.9%) 22 (66.7%) CSF leakage(%) 0.448
Gram stain of CSF
microbial
0.317 No 72 (93.5%) 29 (87.9%)
Negetive 25 (32.5%) 14 (42.4%) Yes 5 (6.5%) 4 (12.1%)
Positive 52 (67.5%) 19 (57.6%) V-P shunting(%) 0.043
CSF Chloride(mmol/L) 119 ± 18 119 ± 12 0.834 No 68 (88.3%) 24 (72.7%)
CSF Sugar(mmol/L) 3.55 ± 2.33 2.56 ± 1.64 0.013 Yes 9 (11.7%) 9 (27.3%)
CSF protein(mmol/L) 5.0 ± 13.7 3.3 ± 3.6 0.32 Diplopneumonia(%) 0.432
CSF RBC(%) 0.56 No 20 (26.0%) 11 (33.3%)
Little 42 (54.5%) 16 (48.5%) Yes 57 (74.0%) 22 (66.7%)
Many 35 (45.5%) 17 (51.5%) Deep vein cannulation(%) 0.159
CSF WBC(× 106/L) 0.896 No 20 (26.0%) 13 (39.4%)
<100 50 (64.9%) 21 (63.6%) Yes 57 (74.0%) 20 (60.6%)
>100 27 (35.1%) 12 (36.4%) WBC(× 109/L) 13.1 ± 6.6 10.5 ± 5.3 0.033
Admission GCS 9.1 ± 3.8 8.9 ± 3.7 0.786 Neutrophil(× 109/L) 12.2 ± 16.2 8.3 ± 4.6 0.053
Blood culture(%) 0.281 Neutrophil percentage(%) 78 ± 10 78 ± 7 0.626
Negetive 61 (79.2%) 23 (69.7%) Monocytes(× 109/L) 0.84 ± 0.54 0.71 ± 0.43 0.175
Positive 16 (20.8%) 10 (30.3%) Lymphocytes(× 109/L) 1.27 ± 0.59 1.27 ± 0.59 0.998
More than two surge-ries(%) 0.159 PLT(× 109/L) 243 ± 117 240± 120 0.164
No 57 (74.0%) 20 (60.6%) Plateletcrit(%) 0.26 ± 0.12 0.30 ± 0.15 0.876
Yes 20 (26.0%) 13 (39.4%) Albumin to globulin ratio 11.39 ± 1.6 10.59 ± 1.15 0.335
GCS on the day of culture 8.9 ± 3.5 9.2 ± 3.5 0.723 CRP(mg/L) 81 ± 41 82 ± 23 0.445
Surgical incision length greater than 10 cm(%) 0.692 Procalcitonin(ng/mL) 0.92 ± 0.8 1.2 ± 0.9 0.126
No 52 (67.5%) 21 (63.6%) Average platelet volume(fL) 10.82 ± 1.24 10.41 ± 1.26 0.118
Yes 25 (32.5%) 12 (36.4%) Platelet mean width(fL) 13.23 ± 2.84 15.96 ± 17.91 0.391
Surgical time greater than 4 h 0.7 RBC(× 1012/L) 3.66 ± 0.85 3.48 ± 0.57 0.205
No(%) 63 (81.8%) 28 (84.8%) Albumin (g/L) 35.5 ± 4.9 36.2 ± 5.3 0.534
Yes 14 (18.2%) 5 (15.2%) Fibrinogen(g/L) 4.09 ± 2.17 3.77 ± 1.68 0.405
Tracheal intubation/
incision greater than 7 days(%)
0.793 APPT(s) 30 ± 10 31 ± 10 0.669
No 26 (33.8%) 12 (36.4%) INR 1.23 ± 1.14 1.11 ± 0.15 0.376
Yes 51 (66.2%) 21 (63.6%) Prothrombin time(s) 12.59 ± 1.65 12.78 ± 1.74 0.596
Fever(%) 0.823 D-D(mg/L) 4.2 ± 4.3 4.1 ± 3.7 0.908
No 25 (32.5%) 10 (30.3%) PT(s) 16.24 ± 1.72 16.80 ± 2.36 0.228
Yes 52 (67.5%) 23 (69.7%) FDP(mg/L) 13 ± 12 14 ± 10 0.91
External ventricular drainage greater than 7 days(%) >0.999 Antithrombin Ⅲ
activity(%)
86 ± 19 80 ± 23 0.226
No 42 (54.5%) 18 (54.5%) Proealeitonin(ng/mL) 275 ± 119 252 ± 105 0.332
Yes 35 (45.5%) 15 (45.5%)
Table 2 Comparison of clinical data of Training cohort and Internal test cohort
Other Images/Table from this Article