Dataset Information

Estimating risk of mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality among adult COVID-19 patients admitted to Mass General Brigham: The VICE and DICE scores.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Risk stratification of COVID-19 patients upon hospital admission is key for their successful treatment and efficient utilization of hospital resources. We sought to evaluate the risk factors on admission (including comorbidities, vital signs, and initial laboratory assessment) associated with ventilation need and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19.

Methods

We established a retrospective cohort of COVID-19 patients from Mass General Brigham hospitals. Demographic, clinical, and admission laboratory data were obtained from electronic medical records of patients admitted to the hospital with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 before May 19, 2020. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to construct and validate the Ventilation in COVID Estimator (VICE) and Death in COVID Estimator (DICE) risk scores.

Findings

The entire cohort included 1042 patients (median age, 64 years; 56.8% male). The derivation and validation cohorts for the risk scores included 578 and 464 patients, respectively. We found four factors to be independently predictive for mechanical ventilation requirement (diabetes mellitus, SpO₂:FiO₂ ratio, C-reactive protein, and lactate dehydrogenase), and 10 factors to be predictors of in-hospital mortality (age, male sex, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic statin use, SpO₂:FiO₂ ratio, body mass index, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, platelet count, and procalcitonin). Using these factors, we constructed the VICE and DICE risk scores, which performed with C-statistics of 0.84 and 0.91, respectively. Importantly, the chronic use of a statin was associated with protection against death due to COVID-19. The VICE and DICE score calculators have been placed on an interactive website freely available to healthcare providers and researchers (https://covid-calculator.com/).

Interpretation

The risk scores developed in this study may help clinicians more appropriately determine which COVID-19 patients will need to be managed with greater intensity.

Funding

COVID-19 Fast Grant (fastgrants.org).

SUBMITTER: Nicholson CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7906522 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Prior studies investigating hospital mechanical ventilation volume-outcome associations have had conflicting findings. Volume-outcome relationships within contemporary mechanical ventilation practices are unclear. We sought to determine associations between hospital mechanical ventilation volume and patient outcomes. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:The California Patient Discharge Database 2016. PATIENTS:Adult nonsurgical patients receiving mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS:The primary outcome was hospital death with secondary outcomes of tracheostomy and 30-day readmission. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to determine the association between patient outcomes and hospital mechanical ventilation volume quartile. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We identified 51,689 patients across 274 hospitals who required mechanical ventilation in California in 2016. 38.2% of patients died in the hospital with 4.4% receiving a tracheostomy. Among survivors, 29.5% required readmission within 30 days of discharge. Patients admitted to high versus low volume hospitals had higher odds of death (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.17-1.68) and tracheostomy (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.06). However, odds of 30-day readmission among survivors was lower at high versus low volume hospitals (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.89). Higher hospital mechanical ventilation volume was weakly correlated with higher hospital risk-adjusted mortality rates (? = 0.16; p = 0.008). These moderately strong observations were supported by multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Contrary to previous studies, we observed worse patient outcomes at higher mechanical ventilation volume hospitals. In the setting of increasing use of mechanical ventilation and changes in mechanical ventilation practices, multiple mechanisms of worse outcomes including resource strain are possible. Future studies investigating differences in processes of care between high and low volume hospitals are necessary.