Problems of Radiation Medicine and Radiobiology

D. Belyi, O. Nastina, G. Sydorenko, Z. Gabulavichene, N. Kursina, O. Bazyka, V. Bilaya,
O. Kovaliov

State Institution «National Research Center for Radiation Medicine of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine», 53 Yuriia Illienka Str., Kyiv, 04050, Ukraine

THE ASSESSMENT OF COMORBID PATHOLOGY IN CLEAN-UP WORKERS OF THE ACCIDENT CONSEQUENCES AT THE CHORNOBYL NPP HAVING CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES

Objective. Analysis of comorbid pathology based on the use of methods for its quantitative assessment in persons who were exposed to radiation because of the Chornobyl accident.
Materials and methods. Comorbid pathology was studied in 608 men, including 420 clean-up workers (CW) of the accident consequences at the Chornobyl NPP (main group) and 188 non-irradiated persons (control group – CG). All patients had cardiovascular diseases as their main pathology and were examined in the cardiology department of the NRCRM hospital during 2011–2019. The groups did not differ by age, either at the beginning of the accident or at the time of their last examination. Patients of both groups before the accident were practically healthy people and were not registered at the dispensary. The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) was used to quantify comorbid pathology.
Results. Comorbid pathology was detected in 418 CW (99.5 %) and 183 patients of CG (99.3 %). The total score in CW (10.3 ± 2.9) units significantly (р = 0.000) exceeded the same index in non-irradiated patients (8.8 ± 3.0) units, as well as the mean number of CIRS categories, whose level severity was 1 point (3.3 ± 1.7 vs. 2.6 ± 1.5, р = 0.000), 2 points (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.6 ± 1.0, p = 0.032) and 3–4 points (1.2 ± 0.8 vs. 1.0 ± 0.9, р = 0.062). In contrast, the mean value of the categories with zero score, i.e. without diseases, was more common in CG (7.8 ± 1.8 vs. 8.8 ± 1.7, р = 0.000). The most common pathology in CW and CG were heart (98.3 % vs. 94.7 %, р < 0.05) and vascular diseases (92.9 % vs. 87.8 %, р > 0.05), followed by diseases of nervous system (79.0 % vs. 57.4 %, р <0.001), musculoskeletal system and skin (69.8 % vs. 56.9 %, р < 0.01), endocrine (56.0 % vs. 49,5 %, р > 0.05) and the respiratory system (53.8 % vs. 53.7 %, р > 0.05) and liver (51.2 % vs. 36.2 %, р < 0.001), which were detected more than in half patients of the main group. Diseases of the kidneys (3.3 % vs. 4.8 %, р > 0.05) and lower gastrointestinal tract (3.3 % vs. 0.5 %, р < 0.01) were quite rare. The incidence of the other four CIRS categories was 18.6–34 %. The total score in subgroups with different ages varied in descending order of mean values as follows: CW > 65 years (10.5 ± 2.9) units, CW < 65 years (9.9 ± 2.8) units, CG > 65 years (9.5 ± 2.8) units and CG < 65 years (7.8 ± 2.9) units with significant differences both between age subgroups in each of the groups and between CW and CG older subgroups.
Conclusions. Quantitative assessment of comorbidity by CIRS showed that in persons irradiated during their emergency work due to the Chornobyl accident, the incidence of combined pathology of such organ systems as cardiovascular, nervous, endocrine, hematopoietic, urogenital, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, liver and kidneys was significantly higher than in non-irradiated patients. In irradiated patients, the course of comorbid pathology was more severe for each system and in general, reflecting higher values of the total CIRS score. Both among CW and non-irradiated controls, higher values of the total comorbidity score were observed in patients 65 years and older, compared with younger individuals. In both age subgroups of CW the total score was higher than in patients of the control group.
Key words: clean-up workers of the accident consequences at the Chornobyl NPP, ionizing radiation, comorbid pathology, chronic diseases.

Problems of Radiation Medicine and Radiobiology.
2020;25:402-420. doi: 10.33145/2304-8336-2020-25-402-420

full text

1. Yakhontov DA. [Arterial hypertension in young men. Pathogenesis. Clinic. Approaches for correction] [Doctor dissertation thesis]. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk Medical Institution; 1995. 50 p. Russian.
2. Legon'kova AS. [Prevalence and mechanisms of formation of isolated systolic arterial hypertension at a young age] [PhD dissertation thesis]. Smolensk: Smolensk State Medical Academy; 2013. 16 p. Russian.
3. Ronzhina OA. [Arterial hypertension and myocardial dysfunction in athletes training the quality of strength] [PhD dissertation thesis]. Kemerovo: Kemerovo State Medical Academy; 2014. 19 p. Russian.
4. Van den Akker M, Buntinx F, Metsemakers JF, Roos S, Knottnerus JA. Multimorbidity in general practice: prevalence, incidence, and determinants of co-occurring chronic and recurrent diseases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(5):367-375. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00306-5.
5. Krylov AA. ?On the problem of disease compatibility?. Klinicheskaja medicina. 2000;1:56-58. Russian.
6. Porovsky YV, Tetenev FF. [Comorbidity in medical practice]. Sibirskoe medicinskoe obozrenie. 2015;4:5-10. Russian.
7. Feinstein AR. The pre-therapeutic classification of co-morbidity in chronic. J Chronic Dis. 1970;23(7):455-468. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(70)90054-8.
8. De Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(3):221 229. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00585-1.
9. Sarsenbayeva GI, Tursynbekova AE. [Modern approaches to the assessment of comorbidity in patients]. Cardiosomatics. 2019;10(1):19-23. Russian.
10. Sarfati D. How Do we measure comorbidity? In: Koczwara B, editor. Cancer and chronic conditions. Singapore : Springer; 2016. p. 35-70.
11. Samorodskaya IV, Nikiforova MA. [Terminology and methods of assessment of influence of comorbidity on prognosis and outcomes of treatment]. Bulletin of A. N. Bakoulev Scientific Center for Cardiovascular Surgery of Russian Acaderny of Medical Sciences. 2013;14(4):18-26. Russian.
12. Hall SF, Rochon PA, Streiner DL, Paszat LF, Groome PA, Rohland SL. Measuring comorbidity in patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(11):1988-1996. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200211000-00015.
13. Boulos DL, Groome PA, Brundage MD, Siemens DR, Mackillop WJ, Heaton JPW, et al. Predictive validity of five comorbidity indices in prostate carcinoma patients treated with curative intent. Cancer. 2006;106(8):1804-1814. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21813.
14. Wang C-Y, Lin Y-S, Tzao C, Lee H-C, Huang M-H, Hsu W-H, et al. Comparison of Charlson comorbidity index and Kaplan-Feinstein index in patients with stage I lung cancer after surgical resection. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;32(6):877-881. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.09.008.
15. Castro MAF, Dedivitis RA, Ribeiro KCB. Comorbidity measurement in patients with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2007;69(3):146-152. doi: 10.1159/000099223.
16. Skvortsova NV, Pospelova TI, Kovynev IB, Nechunaev IN. [Comparative analysis of comorbidity indices with multiple myeloma]. Sibirskij medicinskij zhurnal (Irkutsk). 2018;(2):29-36. Russian.
17. Gordon MJ, Churnetski M, Alqahtani H, Rivera X, Kittai A, Amrock SM, et al. Comorbidities predict inferior outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with ibrutinib. Cancer. 2018;124(15):3192-3200. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31554.
18. Gurgu M, Zamfirescu A, Rascu A, Romila A, Gurgu H, Nedelcu L. Role of comorbidities in caring for chronicly ill elderly patients with and without dementia. Clujul Med. 2014;87(2):102-105. doi: 10.15386/cjmed-291.
19. Wiktorsson S, Berg AI, Wilhelmson K, Fassberg MM, Van Orden K, Duberstein P, et al. Assessing the role of physical illness in young old and older old suicide attempters. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;31(7):771-774. doi: 10.1002/gps.4390.
20. Miller MD, Paradis CF, Houck PR, Mazumdar S, Stack JA, Rifai AH, et al. Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale. Psychiatry Res. 1992;41(3):237-248. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-n.
21. Salvi F, Miller MD, Grilli A, Giorgi R, Towers AL, Morichi V, et al. A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(10):1926-1931. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01935.x.
22. Yarmonenko SP, Vainson AA. [Radiobiology of humans and animals]. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola; 2004. 549 p. Russian.
23. Linn BS, Linn MW, Gurel L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1968;16(5):622-626. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x.
24. Miller MD, Towers A. A manual of guidelines for scoring the cumulative illness rating scale for geriatrics (CIRS-G). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh; 1991. 31 p.
25. Hudon C, Fortin M, Soubhi H. Abbreviated guidelines for scoring the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) in family practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(2):212. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.021.
26. Januzzi JL Jr, Mann DL. Clinical assessment of heart failure. In: Mann DL, Zipes DP, Libby P, Bonow RO, Braunwald E, editors. Heart disease [A textbook of cardiovascular medicine]. Philadelphia: Elsevier, Saunders; 2012. p. 473-483.
27. van Oostrom SH, Picavet HSJ, van Gelder BM, Lemmens LC, Hoeymans N, van Dijk CE, et al. Multimorbidity and comorbidity in the Dutch population – data from general practices. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:715. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-715.
28. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380(9836):37-43. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2.
29. Ryan BL, Jenkyn KB, Shariff SZ, Allen B, Glazier RH, Zwarenstein M, et al. Beyond the grey tsunami: a cross-sectional population-based study of multimorbidity in Ontario. Can J Public Health. 2018;109(5-6):845-854. doi: 10.17269/s41997-018-0103-0.
30. Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR. The importance of classifying initial co-morbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chronic Dis. 1974;27(7-8):387-404. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(74)90017-4.
31. Greenfield S, Sullivan L, Dukes KA, Silliman R, D'Agostino R, Kaplan SH. Development and testing of a new measure of case mix for use in office practice. Med Care. 1995;(4 Suppl):AS47-AS55.
32. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, Mackenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
33. Parmelee PA, Thuras PD, Katz IR, Lawton MP. Validation of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale in a geriatric residential population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;45(2):130-137. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1995.tb06377.x.
34. Oganesyan NM, Ogandzhanyan EE, Melikyan IE, Malikoyan SA, Tiroyan GM, Asryan KV, et al. [Results of monitoring the participants in the liquidation of the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant]. Med Radiol. 1991;36(10):33-36. Russian.
35. Shidlovskii PR. [The dynamics of the general morbidity of the population of Belarus before and after the accident at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (1985–1989)]. Likarska Sprava. 1992;(2):20-22. Russian.
36. Curbakova E, Dzerve B, Eglite M, Farbtuha T, Frickausa I, Zvagule T. The evaluation on time and dose dependent dynamic damages caused by the influence of ionizing radiation to Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident clean-up workers in Latvia. In: International Conference on Radiation and Health: Program and Book of Abstracts; 1996 Nov 3-7; Beer Sheva, Israel. Beer Sheva; 1996. p. 61.
37. Amirazyan SA, Filippova SM, Tikhomirova M.Yu. [Semiotics of the "Chernobyl syndrome" and the role of socio-psychological factors in its formation and development]. Ukrainian Radiological Journal. 1997;5(1):13-15. Ukrainian.
38. Buzunov VO, Tereshchenko VM, Krasnikova LI, Voychulene YS, Tsuprikov VA. [Epidemiology of non-neoplastic diseases. Participants of ACL]. In: Serdiuk A M, Bebeshko V G, Bazyka DA, editors. [Medical consequences of the Chernobyl disaster: 1986-2011]. Ternopil: TSMU; 2011. p. 367-379. Ukrainian.
39. Nikiforov AM. [Medical consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant]. Bulletin of the St-Petersburg State Medical Academy named after II Mechnikov. 2005;1(6):229-233. Russian.
40. Di Libero F, Fargnoli M, Pittiglio S, Mascio M, Giaquinto S. Comorbidity and rehabilitation. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2001;32(1):15-22. doi: 10.1016/s0167-4943(00)00089-3.
41. Kang J, Song Y-M. The association between submarine service and multimorbidity: a cross-sectional study of Korean naval personnel. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e017776. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017776.
42. Buzunov VO, Voychulene Yu, Domashevska T, Khabarova T, Kartushin G. Health status of Chornobyl clean-up workers. In: Bazyka D, Sushko V, Chumak A, Chumak V, Yanovych L, editors. Health effects of the Chornobyl accident – thirty years aftermath. Kyiv: DIA; 2016. p. 218-232.
43. Buzunov V, Tereschenko V, Krasnikova L, Voychulene Y, Tsuprikov V, Domashevska T. Epidemiology of non-tumor diseases in the remote postradiation period. Effects in the Chornobyl clean-up workers of 1986-1987. In: Serdiuk A, Bebeshko V, Bazyka D, Yamashita S, editors. Health effects of the Chernobyl accident – a quarter of century aftermath. Kyiv: DIA; 2011. p. 321-346.
44. Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 2010. Fifty-seventh session, includes Scientific Report: summary of low-dose radiation effects on health. – United Nations: New York; 2011.
45. Cheprasov VYu, Nikiforov AM, Shamova NS, Yudina NL. [Pathophysiological bases of morphological and functional changes in organs and tissues under the influence of ionizing radiation and other factors of a radiation accident (general approaches)] In: AM Nikiforov (ed) Pathology of the long-term period in liquidators of the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Moscow: Publishing house "Binom"; 2002. p. 94-97. Russian.