Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 16, 2024; 12(5): 966-972
Published online Feb 16, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i5.966
Table 1 Comparison of general data between the two groups of patients (mean ± SD), n (%)

Study group (n = 30)
Control group (n = 42)
χ2/t
P value
Male/female16/1425/170.4750.523
Age51.6 ± 11.448.6 ± 14.71.2340.224
Infection1.5870.904
        Urinary tract infection4 (13.3)5 (11.9)
        Hematogenous infection3 (10)4 (9.5)
        Abdominal infection6 (20)8 (19.1)
        Pulmonary infection15 (50)22 (52.4)
        Others2 (6.7)3 (7.1)
Microbiology2.880.518
        Fungus3 (10)5 (11.9)
        G-12 (40)17 (40.5)
        G+5 (16.7)8 (19)
        Mixed infection6 (20)7 (16.7)
        Unknown cause4 (13.3)5 (11.9)
PaO2/FiO2141.85 ± 29.44145.35 ± 30.2811.270.912
Table 2 Comparison of platelet neutrophil aggregates, platelet aggregates, and platelet-mononuclear cell aggregates between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Groups
n
PNAs (%)
PLyAs (%)
PMAs (%)
Study group3014.15 ± 8.9315.42 ± 6.9727.18 ± 6.141
Control group4213.87 ± 9.2414.78 ± 3.2417.29 ± 2.05
Table 3 Comparison of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Scores between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Groups
n
APACHE II
Study group3035.17 ± 5.441
Control group4223.39 ± 4.24
Table 4 Area under the curve for various parameters
Parameter
AUC
SE
P value
95%CI
Upper limit
Lower limit
PMAs0.9570.022< 0.050.9140.974
APACHE Ⅱ0.930.021< 0.050.8720.981
Table 5 Diagnostic values for various parameters
Parameter
Cutoff value
Sensitivity
Specificity
Positive predictive value
Negative predictive value
PMAs8.4180.8190.9470.9560.819
APACHE Ⅱ17.1150.8370.8440.8290.877