Dataset Information

The ROX index has greater predictive validity than NEWS2 for deterioration in Covid-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients admitted to hospital with Covid-19 are at risk of deterioration. The National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) is widely recommended, however it's validity in Covid-19 is not established and indices more specific for respiratory failure may be more appropriate. We aim to describe the physiological antecedents to deterioration, test the predictive validity of NEWS2 and compare this to the ROX index ([SpO₂/FiO₂]/respiratory rate).

Method

A single centre retrospective cohort study of adult patients who were admitted to a medical ward, between 1/3/20 and 30/5/20, with positive results for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Physiological observations and the NEWS2 were extracted and analysed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac arrest, unplanned critical care admission or death within 24 hours. A generalized linear model was used to assess the association of physiological values, NEWS2 and ROX with the outcome.

Findings

The primary outcome occurred in 186 patients (26%). In the preceding 24 hours, deterioration was most marked in respiratory parameters, specifically in escalating oxygen requirement; tachypnoea was a late sign, whilst cardiovascular observations remained stable. The area under the receiver operating curve was 0.815 (95% CI 0.804-0.826) for NEWS2 and 0.848 (95% CI 0.837-0.858) for ROX. Applying the optimal level of ROX, the majority of patients triggered four hours earlier than with NEWS2 of 5.

Interpretation

NEWS2 may under-perform in Covid-19 due to intrinsic limitations of the design and the unique pathophysiology of the disease. A simple index utilising respiratory parameters can outperform NEWS2 in predicting the occurrence of adverse events.

SUBMITTER: Prower E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8068777 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:From early March through mid-May 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed hospitals in New York City. In anticipation of ventilator shortages and limited ICU bed capacity, hospital operations prioritized the development of prognostic tools to predict clinical deterioration. However, early experience from frontline physicians observed that some patients developed unanticipated deterioration after having relatively stable periods, attesting to the uncertainty of clinical trajectories among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Prediction tools that incorporate clinical variables at one time-point, usually on hospital presentation, are suboptimal for patients with dynamic changes and evolving clinical trajectories. Therefore, our study team developed a machine-learning algorithm to predict clinical deterioration among hospitalized COVID-19 patients by extracting clinically meaningful features from complex longitudinal laboratory and vital sign values during the early period of hospitalization with an emphasis on informative missing-ness. To incorporate the evolution of the disease and clinical practice over the course of the pandemic, we utilized a time-dependent cross-validation strategy for model development. Finally, we validated our prediction model on an external validation cohort of COVID-19 patients served in a demographically distinct population from the training cohort. The main finding of our study is the identification of risk profiles of early, late and no clinical deterioration during the course of hospitalization. While risk prediction models that include simple predictors at ED presentation and clinical judgement are able to identify any deterioration vs. no deterioration, our methodology is able to isolate a particular risk group that remain stable initially but deteriorate at a later stage of the course of hospitalization. We demonstrate the superior predictive performance with the utilization of laboratory and vital sign data during the early period of hospitalization compared to the utilization of data at presentation alone. Our results will allow efficient hospital resource allocation and will motivate research in understanding the late deterioration risk group.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) to treat COVID-19 pneumonia has been greatly debated around the world due to concerns about increased health care worker transmission and delays in invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Herein, we analyzed the utility of the noninvasive ROX (ratio of oxygen saturation) index to predict the need for and timing of IMV.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess whether the ROX index can be a useful score to predict intubation and IMV in patients receiving HFNT as treatment for COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort analysis of 129 consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, PA, from March 10, 2020, to May 17, 2020. This is a single-center study conducted in designated COVID-19 units (intensive care unit and other wards) at Temple University Hospital. Patients with moderate and severe hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNT were included in the study. HFNT patients were divided into two groups: HFNT only and intubation (ie, patients who progressed from HFNT to IMV). The primary outcome was the value of the ROX index in predicting the need for IMV. Secondary outcomes were mortality, rate of intubation, length of stay, and rate of nosocomial infections in a cohort treated initially with HFNT.ResultsOf the 837 patients with COVID-19, 129 met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 60.8 (SD 13.6) years, mean BMI was 32.6 (SD 8) kg/m², 58 (45%) were female, 72 (55.8%) were African American, 40 (31%) were Hispanic, and 48 (37.2%) were nonsmokers. The mean time to intubation was 2.5 (SD 3.3) days. An ROX index value of less than 5 at HFNT initiation was suggestive of progression to IMV (odds ratio [OR] 2.137, P=.052). Any further decrease in ROX index value after HFNT initiation was predictive of intubation (OR 14.67, P<.001). Mortality was 11.2% (n=10) in the HFNT-only group versus 47.5% (n=19) in the intubation group (P<.001). Mortality and need for pulmonary vasodilators were higher in the intubation group.ConclusionsThe ROX index helps decide which patients need IMV and may limit eventual morbidity and mortality associated with the progression to IMV.