Dataset Information

External validation of the 4C Mortality Score for patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing cardiovascular diseases/risk factors.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Predictive algorithms to inform risk management decisions are needed for patients with COVID-19, although the traditional risk scores have not been adequately assessed in Asian patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a COVID-19-specific prediction model, the 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) Mortality Score, along with other conventional critical care risk models in Japanese nationwide registry data.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting and participants

Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease or coronary risk factors from January to May 2020 in 49 hospitals in Japan.

Main outcome measures

Two different types of outcomes, in-hospital mortality and a composite outcome, defined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality.

Results

The risk scores for 693 patients were tested by predicting in-hospital mortality for all patients and composite endpoint among those not intubated at baseline (n=659). The number of events was 108 (15.6%) for mortality and 178 (27.0%) for composite endpoints. After missing values were multiply imputed, the performance of the 4C Mortality Score was assessed and compared with three prediction models that have shown good discriminatory ability (RISE UP score, A-DROP score and the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS)). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the 4C Mortality Score was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.88) for in-hospital mortality and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81) for the composite endpoint. It showed greater discriminatory ability compared with other scores, except for the RISE UP score, for predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86). Similarly, the 4C Mortality Score showed a positive net reclassification improvement index over the A-DROP and REMS for mortality and over all three scores for the composite endpoint. The 4C Mortality Score model showed good calibration, regardless of outcome.

Conclusions

The 4C Mortality Score performed well in an independent external COVID-19 cohort and may enable appropriate disposition of patients and allocation of medical resources.Trial registration number UMIN000040598.

SUBMITTER: Kuroda S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8438580 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEstimating mortality risk in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2+ patients may help with choosing level of care and discussions with patients. The Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium Mortality Score (4C Score) is a promising COVID-19 mortality risk model. We examined the association of risk factors with 30-day mortality in hospitalised, full-code SARS-CoV-2+ patients and investigated the discrimination and calibration of the 4C Score. This was a retrospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2+ hospitalised patients within the RECOVER (REgistry of suspected COVID-19 in EmeRgency care) network.Setting99 emergency departments (EDs) across the USA.ParticipantsPatients ≥18 years old, positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the ED, and hospitalised.Primary outcomeDeath within 30 days of the index visit. We performed logistic regression analysis, reporting multivariable risk ratios (MVRRs) and calculated the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and mean prediction error for the original 4C Score and after dropping the C reactive protein (CRP) component.ResultsOf 6802 hospitalised patients with COVID-19, 1149 (16.9%) died within 30 days. The 30-day mortality was increased with age 80+ years (MVRR=5.79, 95% CI 4.23 to 7.34); male sex (MVRR=1.17, 1.05 to 1.28); and nursing home/assisted living facility residence (MVRR=1.29, 1.1 to 1.48). The 4C Score had comparable discrimination in the RECOVER dataset compared with the original 4C validation dataset (AUROC: RECOVER 0.786 (95% CI 0.773 to 0.799), 4C validation 0.763 (95% CI 0.757 to 0.769). Score-specific mortalities in our sample were lower than in the 4C validation sample (mean prediction error 6.0%). Dropping the CRP component from the 4C Score did not substantially affect discrimination and 4C risk estimates were now close (mean prediction error 0.7%).ConclusionsWe independently validated 4C Score as predicting risk of 30-day mortality in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2+ patients. We recommend dropping the CRP component of the score and using our recalibrated mortality risk estimates.

Project description:BackgroundThe Sepsis-3 criteria introduced the system that uses the Sequential Organ-Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to define sepsis. The cardiovascular SOFA (CV SOFA) scoring system needs modification due to the change in guideline-recommended vasopressors. In this study, we aimed to develop and to validate the modified CV SOFA score.MethodsWe developed, internally validated, and externally validated the modified CV SOFA score using the suspected infection cohort, sepsis cohort, and septic shock cohort. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The modified CV SOFA score system was constructed with consideration of the recently recommended use of the vasopressor norepinephrine with or without lactate level. The predictive validity of the modified SOFA score was evaluated by the discrimination for the primary outcome. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). Calibration was assessed using the calibration curve. We compared the prognostic performance of the original CV/total SOFA score and the modified CV/total SOFA score to detect mortality in patients with suspected infection, sepsis, or septic shock.ResultsWe identified 7,393 patients in the suspected cohort, 4038 patients in the sepsis cohort, and 3,107 patients in the septic shock cohort in seven Korean emergency departments (EDs). The 28-day mortality rates were 7.9%, 21.4%, and 20.5%, respectively, in the suspected infection, sepsis, and septic shock cohorts. The model performance is higher when vasopressor and lactate were used in combination than the vasopressor only used model. The modified CV/total SOFA score was well-developed and internally and externally validated in terms of discrimination and calibration. Predictive validity of the modified CV SOFA was significantly higher than that of the original CV SOFA in the development set (0.682 vs 0.624, p < 0.001), test set (0.716 vs 0.638), and all other cohorts (0.648 vs 0.557, 0.674 vs 0.589). Calibration was modest. In the suspected infection cohort, the modified model classified more patients to sepsis (66.0 vs 62.5%) and identified more patients at risk of septic mortality than the SOFA score (92.6 vs 89.5%).ConclusionsAmong ED patients with suspected infection, sepsis, and septic shock, the newly-developed modified CV/total SOFA score had higher predictive validity and identified more patients at risk of septic mortality.