Dataset Information

Breath-holding as a novel approach to risk stratification in COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite considerable progress, it remains unclear why some patients admitted for COVID-19 develop adverse outcomes while others recover spontaneously. Clues may lie with the predisposition to hypoxemia or unexpected absence of dyspnea ('silent hypoxemia') in some patients who later develop respiratory failure. Using a recently-validated breath-holding technique, we sought to test the hypothesis that gas exchange and ventilatory control deficits observed at admission are associated with subsequent adverse COVID-19 outcomes (composite primary outcome: non-invasive ventilatory support, intensive care admission, or death).

Methods

Patients with COVID-19 (N = 50) performed breath-holds to obtain measurements reflecting the predisposition to oxygen desaturation (mean desaturation after 20-s) and reduced chemosensitivity to hypoxic-hypercapnia (including maximal breath-hold duration). Associations with the primary composite outcome were modeled adjusting for baseline oxygen saturation, obesity, sex, age, and prior cardiovascular disease. Healthy controls (N = 23) provided a normative comparison.

Results

The adverse composite outcome (observed in N = 11/50) was associated with breath-holding measures at admission (likelihood ratio test, p = 0.020); specifically, greater mean desaturation (12-fold greater odds of adverse composite outcome with 4% compared with 2% desaturation, p = 0.002) and greater maximal breath-holding duration (2.7-fold greater odds per 10-s increase, p = 0.036). COVID-19 patients who did not develop the adverse composite outcome had similar mean desaturation to healthy controls.

Conclusions

Breath-holding offers a novel method to identify patients with high risk of respiratory failure in COVID-19. Greater breath-hold induced desaturation (gas exchange deficit) and greater breath-holding tolerance (ventilatory control deficit) may be independent harbingers of progression to severe disease.

SUBMITTER: Messineo L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8200551 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Risk prediction is an essential part of clinical care, in order to allocate resources and provide care appropriately. During the COVID-19 pandemic risk prediction became a matter of political and public debate as a major clinical need to guide medical and organizational decisions. We previously presented a simplified risk stratification score based on a nomogram developed in Wuhan, China in the early phase of the pandemic. Here we aimed to validate this simplified risk stratification score in a larger patient cohort from one city in Austria. Age, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein levels and creatinine levels were used to estimate the in-hospital mortality risk for COVID-19 patients in a point based score: 1 point per age decade, 4 points for oxygen saturation <92%, 8 points for CRP > 10 mg/l and 4 points for creatinine > 84 μmol/l. Between June 2020 and March 2021, during the "second wave" of the pandemic, 1,472 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted to two hospitals in Graz, Austria. In 961 patients the necessary dataset to calculate the simplified risk stratification score was available. In this cohort, as in the cohort that was used to develop the score, a score above 22 was associated with a significantly higher mortality (p < 0.001). Cox regression confirmed that an increase of one point in the risk stratification score increases the 28-day-mortality risk approximately 1.2-fold. Patients who were categorized as high risk (≥22 points) showed a 3-4 fold increased mortality risk. Our simplified risk stratification score performed well in a separate, larger validation cohort. We therefore propose that our risk stratification score, that contains only two routine laboratory parameter, age and oxygen saturation as variables can be a useful and easy to implement tool for COVID-19 risk stratification and beyond. The clinical usefulness of a risk prediction/stratification tool needs to be assessed prospectively (https://www.cbmed.at/covid-19-risk-calculator/).

Project description:Objective: To distinguish COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia patients and classify COVID-19 patients into low-risk and high-risk at admission by laboratory indicators. Materials and methods: In this retrospective cohort, a total of 3,563 COVID-19 patients and 118 non-COVID-19 pneumonia patients were included. There are two cohorts of COVID-19 patients, including 548 patients in the training dataset, and 3,015 patients in the testing dataset. Laboratory indicators were measured during hospitalization for all patients. Based on laboratory indicators, we used the support vector machine and joint random sampling to risk stratification for COVID-19 patients at admission. Based on laboratory indicators detected within the 1st week after admission, we used logistic regression and joint random sampling to develop the survival mode. The laboratory indicators of COVID-10 and non-COVID-19 were also compared. Results: We first identified the significant laboratory indicators related to the severity of COVID-19 in the training dataset. Neutrophils percentage, lymphocytes percentage, creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen with AUC >0.7 were included in the model. These indicators were further used to build a support vector machine model to classify patients into low-risk and high-risk at admission in the testing dataset. Results showed that this model could stratify the patients in the testing dataset effectively (AUC = 0.89). Our model still has good performance at different times (Mean AUC: 0.71, 0.72, 0.72, respectively for 3, 5, and 7 days after admission). Moreover, laboratory indicators detected within the 1st week after admission were able to estimate the probability of death (AUC = 0.95). We identified six indicators with permutation p < 0.05, including eosinophil percentage (p = 0.007), white blood cell count (p = 0.045), albumin (p = 0.041), aspartate transaminase (p = 0.043), lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.002), and hemoglobin (p = 0.031). We could diagnose COVID-19 and differentiate it from other kinds of viral pneumonia based on these laboratory indicators. Conclusions: Our risk-stratification model based on laboratory indicators could help to diagnose, monitor, and predict severity at an early stage of COVID-19. In addition, laboratory findings could be used to distinguish COVID-19 and non-COVID-19.