Dataset Information

Comparing Rapid Scoring Systems in Mortality Prediction of Critically Ill Patients With Novel Coronavirus Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Rapid and early severity-of-illness assessment appears to be important for critically ill patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the rapid scoring system on admission of these patients.

Methods

A total of 138 medical records of critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Demographic and clinical characteristics on admission used for calculating Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) and outcomes (survival or death) were collected for each case and extracted for analysis. All patients were divided into two age subgroups (<65 years and ≥65 years). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed for overall patients and both subgroups.

Results

The median [25th quartile, 75th quartile] of MEWS of survivors versus nonsurvivors were 1 [1, 2] and 2 [1, 3] and those of REMS were 5 [2, 6] and 7 [6, 10], respectively. In overall analysis, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.833 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.737 to 0.928), higher than that of MEWS (0.677, 95% CI = 0.541 to 0.813). An optimal cutoff of REMS (≥6) had a sensitivity of 89.5%, a specificity of 69.8%, a positive predictive value of 39.5%, and a negative predictive value of 96.8%. In the analysis of subgroup of patients aged <65 years, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.863 (95% CI = 0.743 to 0.941), higher than that of MEWS (0.603, 95% CI = 0.462 to 0.732).

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this study was the first exploration on rapid scoring systems for critically ill patients with COVID-19. The REMS could provide emergency clinicians with an effective adjunct risk stratification tool for critically ill patients with COVID-19, especially for the patients aged <65 years. The effectiveness of REMS for screening these patients is attributed to its high negative predictive value.

SUBMITTER: Hu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7264631 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple scoring systems have been developed for both the intensive care unit (ICU) and the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify patients and predict mortality. However, it remains unclear whether the additional data needed to compute ICU scores improves mortality prediction for critically ill patients compared to the simpler ED scores.MethodsWe studied a prospective observational cohort of 227 critically ill patients admitted to the ICU directly from the ED at an academic, tertiary care medical center. We compared Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Prince of Wales Emergency Department Score (PEDS), and a pre-hospital critical illness prediction score developed by Seymour et al. (JAMA 2010, 304(7):747-754). The primary endpoint was 60-day mortality. We compared the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the different scores and their calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and visual assessment.ResultsThe ICU scores outperformed the ED scores with higher area under the curve (AUC) values (p = 0.01). There were no differences in discrimination among the ED-based scoring systems (AUC 0.698 to 0.742; p = 0.45) or among the ICU-based scoring systems (AUC 0.779 to 0.799; p = 0.60). With the exception of the Seymour score, the ED-based scoring systems did not discriminate as well as the best-performing ICU-based scoring system, APACHE III (p = 0.005 to 0.01 for comparison of ED scores to APACHE III). The Seymour score had a superior AUC to other ED scores and, despite a lower AUC than all the ICU scores, was not significantly different than APACHE III (p = 0.09). When data from the first 24 h in the ICU was used to calculate the ED scores, the AUC for the ED scores improved numerically, but this improvement was not statistically significant. All scores had acceptable calibration.ConclusionsIn contrast to prior studies of patients based in the emergency department, ICU scores outperformed ED scores in critically ill patients admitted from the emergency department. This difference in performance seemed to be primarily due to the complexity of the scores rather than the time window from which the data was derived.

Project description:ObjectivesCritically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have variable mortality. Risk scores could improve care and be used for prognostic enrichment in trials. We aimed to compare machine learning algorithms and develop a simple tool for predicting 28-day mortality in ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019.DesignThis was an observational study of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was 28-day inhospital mortality. Machine learning models and a simple tool were derived using variables from the first 48 hours of ICU admission and validated externally in independent sites and temporally with more recent admissions. Models were compared with a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration.SettingSixty-eight U.S. ICUs.PatientsAdults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 ICUs in the United States between March 4, 2020, and June 29, 2020.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsThe study included 5,075 patients, 1,846 (36.4%) of whom died by day 28. eXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.81) and was well-calibrated, while k-nearest neighbors were the lowest performing machine learning algorithm (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.69). Findings were similar with temporal validation. The simple tool, which was created using the most important features from the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model, had a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation (0.78) than the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.69), National Early Warning Score (0.60), and CURB-65 (0.65; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Age, number of ICU beds, creatinine, lactate, arterial pH, and Pao2/Fio2 ratio were the most important predictors in the eXtreme Gradient Boosting model.ConclusionseXtreme Gradient Boosting had the highest discrimination overall, and our simple tool had higher discrimination than a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, National Early Warning Score, and CURB-65 on external validation. These models could be used to improve triage decisions and clinical trial enrichment.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Increasing time to mechanical ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula use may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019. We examined the impact of time to intubation and use of high-flow nasal cannula on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Six coronavirus disease 2019-specific ICUs across four university-affiliated hospitals in Atlanta, Georgia. PATIENTS:Adults with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who received high-flow nasal cannula or mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Among 231 patients admitted to the ICU, 109 (47.2%) were treated with high-flow nasal cannula and 97 (42.0%) were intubated without preceding high-flow nasal cannula use. Of those managed with high-flow nasal cannula, 78 (71.6%) ultimately received mechanical ventilation. In total, 175 patients received mechanical ventilation; 44.6% were female, 66.3% were Black, and the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 56-75 yr). Seventy-six patients (43.4%) were intubated within 8 hours of ICU admission, 57 (32.6%) between 8 and 24 hours of admission, and 42 (24.0%) greater than or equal to 24 hours after admission. Patients intubated within 8 hours were more likely to have diabetes, chronic comorbidities, and higher admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. Mortality did not differ by time to intubation (? 8 hr: 38.2%; 8-24 hr: 31.6%; ? 24 hr: 38.1%; p = 0.7), and there was no association between time to intubation and mortality in adjusted analysis. Similarly, there was no difference in initial static compliance, duration of mechanical ventilation, or ICU length of stay by timing of intubation. High-flow nasal cannula use prior to intubation was not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS:In this cohort of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019, neither time from ICU admission to intubation nor high-flow nasal cannula use were associated with increased mortality. This study provides evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure can be managed similarly to hypoxic respiratory failure of other etiologies.

Project description:ObjectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection to which there is no community immunity. Patients admitted to ICUs have high mortality, with only supportive therapies available. Our aim was to profile plasma inflammatory analytes to help understand the host response to coronavirus disease 2019.DesignDaily blood inflammation profiling with immunoassays.SettingTertiary care ICU and academic laboratory.SubjectsAll patients admitted to the ICU suspected of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2, using standardized hospital screening methodologies, had daily blood samples collected until either testing was confirmed negative on ICU day 3 (coronavirus disease 2019 negative), or until ICU day 7 if the patient was positive (coronavirus disease 2019 positive).InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAge- and sex-matched healthy controls and ICU patients that were either coronavirus disease 2019 positive or coronavirus disease 2019 negative were enrolled. Cohorts were well-balanced with the exception that coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients were more likely than coronavirus disease 2019 negative patients to suffer bilateral pneumonia. Mortality rate for coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients was 40%. We measured 57 inflammatory analytes and then analyzed with both conventional statistics and machine learning. Twenty inflammatory analytes were different between coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients and healthy controls (p < 0.01). Compared with coronavirus disease 2019 negative patients, coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients had 17 elevated inflammatory analytes on one or more of their ICU days 1-3 (p < 0.01), with feature classification identifying the top six analytes between cohorts as tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, interleukin-18, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10, and elastase 2. While tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, and interleukin-18 were elevated for all seven ICU days, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10 transiently elevated on ICU days 2 and 3 and elastase 2 increased over ICU days 2-7. Inflammation profiling predicted coronavirus disease 2019 status with 98% accuracy, whereas elevated heat shock protein 70 was strongly associated with mortality.ConclusionsWhile many inflammatory analytes were elevated in coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients, relative to healthy controls, the top six analytes distinguishing coronavirus disease 2019 positive ICU patients from coronavirus disease 2019 negative ICU patients were tumor necrosis factor, granzyme B, heat shock protein 70, interleukin-18, interferon-gamma-inducible protein 10, and elastase 2.