Dataset Information

Development and Validation of ARC, a Model for Anticipating Acute Respiratory Failure in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate factors predictive of clinical progression among coronavirus disease 2019 patients following admission, and whether continuous, automated assessments of patient status may contribute to optimal monitoring and management.

Design

Retrospective cohort for algorithm training, testing, and validation.

Setting

Eight hospitals across two geographically distinct regions.

Patients

Two-thousand fifteen hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Anticipating Respiratory failure in Coronavirus disease (ARC), a clinically interpretable, continuously monitoring prognostic model of acute respiratory failure in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients, was developed and validated. An analysis of the most important clinical predictors aligns with key risk factors identified by other investigators but contributes new insights regarding the time at which key factors first begin to exhibit aberrency and distinguishes features predictive of acute respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 versus pneumonia caused by other types of infection. Departing from prior work, ARC was designed to update continuously over time as new observations (vitals and laboratory test results) are recorded in the electronic health record. Validation against data from two geographically distinct health systems showed that the proposed model achieved 75% specificity and 77% sensitivity and predicted acute respiratory failure at a median time of 32 hours prior to onset. Over 80% of true-positive alerts occurred in non-ICU settings.

Conclusions

Patients admitted to non-ICU environments with coronavirus disease 2019 are at ongoing risk of clinical progression to severe disease, yet it is challenging to anticipate which patients will develop acute respiratory failure. A continuously monitoring prognostic model has potential to facilitate anticipatory rather than reactive approaches to escalation of care (e.g., earlier initiation of treatments for severe disease or structured monitoring and therapeutic interventions for high-risk patients).

SUBMITTER: Saria S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8177871 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAn ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.DesignA multicenter, retrospective cohort study.SettingThree tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China.PatientsForty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsMean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.ConclusionsHigh-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterize the incidence and characteristics of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia in coronavirus disease 2019 versus noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome.DesignSingle-center prospective, observational cohort study.SettingMedical ICU and regional infectious containment unit.PatientsPatients with acute respiratory distress syndrome admitted from April 7, 2020, to May 15, 2020, requiring continuous propofol administration.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 50 patients enrolled, 54% had coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 35.5 (interquartile range, 30.2-41) and 8 (interquartile range, 6-9). Pao2/Fio2 ratio was 130.5 (interquartile range, 94.5-193.8). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome experienced a higher rate of hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride ≥ 500 mg/dL) than noncoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (9 [33.3%] vs 1 [4.3%]; p = 0.014). Those with coronavirus disease 2019, compared with those without, received more propofol prior to becoming hypertriglyceridemic (median, 5,436.0 mg [interquartile range, 3,405.5-6,845.5 mg] vs 4,229.0 mg [interquartile range, 2,083.4-4,972.1 mg]; p = 0.027). After adjustment for propofol dose with logistic regression (odds ratio, 5.97; 95% CI, 1.16-59.57; p = 0.031) and propensity score matching (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.27-149.12; p = 0.025), there remained a significant difference in the development of hypertriglyceridemia between coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and noncoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. There was no difference between groups in time to hypertriglyceridemia (p = 0.063). Serum lipase was not different between those who did or did not develop hypertriglyceridemia (p = 0.545). No patients experienced signs or symptoms of pancreatitis.ConclusionsPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome experienced a higher rate of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia than noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, even after accounting for differences in propofol administration.