Dataset Information

Chest X-ray for predicting mortality and the need for ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the inter-rater agreement of chest X-ray (CXR) findings in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to determine the value of initial CXR along with demographic, clinical, and laboratory data at emergency department (ED) presentation for predicting mortality and the need for ventilatory support.

Methods

A total of 340 COVID-19 patients who underwent CXR in the ED setting (March 1-13, 2020) were retrospectively included. Two reviewers independently assessed CXR abnormalities, including ground-glass opacities (GGOs) and consolidation. Two scoring systems (Brixia score and percentage of lung involvement) were applied. Inter-rater agreement was assessed by weighted Cohen's kappa (κ) or intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Predictors of death and respiratory support were identified by logistic or Poisson regression.

Results

GGO admixed with consolidation (n = 235, 69%) was the most common CXR finding. The inter-rater agreement was almost perfect for type of parenchymal opacity (κ = 0.90), Brixia score (ICC = 0.91), and percentage of lung involvement (ICC = 0.95). The Brixia score (OR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.34; p = 0.003), age (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.22; p < 0.001), PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98, 1; p = 0.002), and cardiovascular diseases (OR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.28, 8.39; p = 0.014) predicted death. Percentage of lung involvement (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.03; p = 0.001) and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.00; p < 0.001) were significant predictors of the need for ventilatory support.

Conclusions

CXR is a reproducible tool for assessing COVID-19 and integrates with patient history, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, and SpO₂ values to early predict mortality and the need for ventilatory support.

Key points

• Chest X-ray is a reproducible tool for assessing COVID-19 pneumonia. • The Brixia score and percentage of lung involvement on chest X-ray integrate with patient history, PaO₂/FIO₂ ratio, and SpO₂ values to early predict mortality and the need for ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department.

SUBMITTER: Balbi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7543667 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSepsis is a life-threatening condition, causing almost one fifth of all deaths worldwide. The aim of the current study was to identify variables predictive of 7- and 30-day mortality among variables reflective of the presentation of septic patients arriving to the emergency department (ED) using machine learning.MethodsRetrospective cross-sectional design, including all patients arriving to the ED at Södersjukhuset in Sweden during 2013 and discharged with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code corresponding to sepsis. All predictions were made using a Balanced Random Forest Classifier and 91 variables reflecting ED presentation. An exhaustive search was used to remove unnecessary variables in the final model. A 10-fold cross validation was performed and the accuracy was described using the mean value of the following: AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, positive LR and negative LR.ResultsThe study population included 445 septic patients, randomised to a training (n = 356, 80%) and a validation set (n = 89, 20%). The six most important variables for predicting 7-day mortality were: "fever", "abnormal verbal response", "low saturation", "arrival by emergency medical services (EMS)", "abnormal behaviour or level of consciousness" and "chills". The model including these variables had an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.86). The final model predicting 30-day mortality used similar six variables, however, including "breathing difficulties" instead of "abnormal behaviour or level of consciousness". This model achieved an AUC = 0.80 (CI 95%, 0.78-0.82).ConclusionsThe results suggest that six specific variables were predictive of 7- and 30-day mortality with good accuracy which suggests that these symptoms, observations and mode of arrival may be important components to include along with vital signs in a future prediction tool of mortality among septic patients presenting to the ED. In addition, the Random Forests appears to be a suitable machine learning method on which to build future studies.

Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.