Dataset Information

A clinical risk score to predict in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify factors influencing the mortality risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19, and to develop a risk prediction score to be used at admission to intensive care unit (ICU).

Design

A multicentre cohort study.

Setting and participants

1542 patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in public hospitals of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates between 1 March 2020 and 22 July 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was time from ICU admission until death. We used competing risk regression models and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator to identify the factors, and to construct a risk score. Predictive ability of the score was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the Brier score using 500 bootstraps replications.

Results

Among patients admitted to ICU, 196 (12.7%) died, 1215 (78.8%) were discharged and 131 (8.5%) were right-censored. The cumulative mortality incidence was 14% (95% CI 12.17% to 15.82%). From 36 potential predictors, we identified seven factors associated with mortality, and included in the risk score: age (adjusted HR (AHR) 1.98; 95% CI 1.71 to 2.31), neutrophil percentage (AHR 1.71; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.31), lactate dehydrogenase (AHR 1.31; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.49), respiratory rate (AHR 1.31; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.49), creatinine (AHR 1.19; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.28), Glasgow Coma Scale (AHR 0.70; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.78) and oxygen saturation (SpO₂) (AHR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91). The mean AUC was 88.1 (95% CI 85.6 to 91.6), and the Brier score was 8.11 (95% CI 6.74 to 9.60). We developed a freely available web-based risk calculator (https://icumortalityrisk.shinyapps.io/ICUrisk/).

Conclusion

In critically ill patients with COVID-19, we identified factors associated with mortality, and developed a risk prediction tool that showed high predictive ability. This tool may have utility in clinical settings to guide decision-making, and may facilitate the identification of supportive therapies to improve outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Alkaabi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8392735 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AbstractAs severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals.In this retrospective observational study, we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model.Two thousand one hundred and ninety-three patients in the Mi-COVID19 registry met our inclusion criteria. The derivation and validation sets ultimately included 1690 and 398 patients, respectively, with mortality rates of 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. The average age of participants in the study after exclusions was 64 years old, and the participants were 48% female, 49% Black, and 87% non-Hispanic. Our final model includes the patient's age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital's COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the derivation and validation sets were .796 (95% confidence interval, .767-.826) and .829 (95% confidence interval, .782-.876) respectively.We conclude that the risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.

Project description:BackgroundFew small studies have described hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) occurring in patients with COVID-19.Research questionWhat characteristics in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are associated with HAIs and how are HAIs associated with outcomes in these patients?Study design and methodsMulticenter retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data including adult patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to eight Italian hub hospitals from February 20, 2020, through May 20, 2020. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate Weibull regression models were used to assess incidence, microbial cause, resistance patterns, risk factors (ie, demographics, comorbidities, exposure to medication), and impact on outcomes (ie, ICU discharge, length of ICU and hospital stays, and duration of mechanical ventilation) of microbiologically confirmed HAIs.ResultsOf the 774 included patients, 359 patients (46%) demonstrated 759 HAIs (44.7 infections/1,000 ICU patient-days; 35% multidrug-resistant [MDR] bacteria). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; n = 389 [50%]), bloodstream infections (BSIs; n = 183 [34%]), and catheter-related BSIs (n = 74 [10%]) were the most frequent HAIs, with 26.0 (95% CI, 23.6-28.8) VAPs per 1,000 intubation-days, 11.7 (95% CI, 10.1-13.5) BSIs per 1,000 ICU patient-days, and 4.7 (95% CI, 3.8-5.9) catheter-related BSIs per 1,000 ICU patient-days. Gram-negative bacteria (especially Enterobacterales) and Staphylococcus aureus caused 64% and 28% of cases of VAP, respectively. Variables independently associated with infection were age, positive end expiratory pressure, and treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics at admission. Two hundred thirty-four patients (30%) died in the ICU (15.3 deaths/1,000 ICU patient-days). Patients with HAIs complicated by septic shock showed an almost doubled mortality rate (52% vs 29%), whereas noncomplicated infections did not affect mortality. HAIs prolonged mechanical ventilation (median, 24 days [interquartile range (IQR), 14-39 days] vs 9 days [IQR, 5-13 days]; P < .001), ICU stay (24 days [IQR, 16-41 days] vs 9 days [IQR, 6-14 days]; P = .003), and hospital stay (42 days [IQR, 25-59 days] vs 23 days [IQR, 13-34 days]; P < .001).InterpretationCritically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high risk for HAIs, especially VAPs and BSIs resulting from MDR organisms. HAIs prolong mechanical ventilation and hospitalization, and HAIs complicated by septic shock almost double mortality.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04388670; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Project description:Corticosteroids use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, especially in mild to severe patients who do not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation. Moreover, many factors remain unclear regarding the appropriate use of corticosteroids for COVID-19. In this context, this multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of systemic corticosteroid administration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranging in the degree of severity from mild to critically-ill disease. This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed January-April 2020 across 30 institutions in Japan. Clinical outcomes were compared for COVID-19 patients who received or did not receive corticosteroids, after adjusting for propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improvement on a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15. Of 1092 COVID-19 patients analyzed, 118 patients were assigned to either the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid group, after propensity score matching. At baseline, most patients did not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation (85.6% corticosteroid group vs. 89.8% non-corticosteroid group). The odds of improvement in a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15 was significantly lower for the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (OR, 0.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.388-0.962; p = 0.034). The time to improvement in radiological findings was significantly shorter in the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.758; 95% CI, 1.323-2.337; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline clinical status. The duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (HR, 1.466; 95% CI, 0.841-2.554; p = 0.177). Of the 106 patients who received methylprednisolone, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the pulse/semi-pulse versus standard dose group (HR, 2.831; 95% CI, 1.347-5.950; p = 0.006). In conclusion, corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not improve clinical status on Day 15, but reduced the time to improvement in radiological findings for all patients regardless of disease severity and also reduced the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who required intubation.Trial registration: This study was registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on April 21, 2020 (ID: UMIN000040211).