Dataset Information

COVID-19 risk index (CRI): a simple and validated emergency department risk score that predicts mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation.

ABSTRACT: Although certain risk factors have been associated with morbidity and mortality, validated emergency department (ED) derived risk prediction models specific to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. The objective of this study is to describe and externally validate the COVID-19 risk index (CRI). A large retrospective longitudinal cohort study was performed to analyze consecutively hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Multivariate regression using clinical data elements from the ED was used to create the CRI. The results were validated with an external cohort of 1799 patients from the MI-COVID19 database. The primary outcome was the composite of the need for mechanical ventilation or inpatient mortality, and the secondary outcome was inpatient mortality. A total of 1020 patients were included in the derivation cohort. A total of 236 (23%) patients in the derivation cohort required mechanical ventilation or died. Variables independently associated with the primary outcome were age ≥ 65 years, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular disease, initial D-dimer > 1.1 µg/mL, platelet count < 150 K/µL, and severity of SpO2:FiO2 ratio. The derivation cohort had an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83, and 0.74 in the external validation cohort Calibration shows close adherence between the observed and expected primary outcomes within the validation cohort. The CRI is a novel disease-specific tool that assesses the risk for mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Discrimination of the score may change given continuous updates in contemporary COVID-19 management and outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Raad M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8458044 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDue to hospital crowding, mechanically ventilated patients are increasingly spending hours boarding in emergency departments (ED) before intensive care unit (ICU) admission. This study aims to evaluate the association between time ventilated in the ED and in-hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS).MethodsThis was a multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients ventilated in the ED, conducted at three academic Level I Trauma Centers from July 2011 to March 2013. All consecutive adult patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were eligible for enrollment. We performed a Cox regression to assess for a mortality effect for mechanically ventilated patients with each hour of increasing LOS in the ED and multivariable regression analyses to assess for independently significant contributors to in-hospital mortality. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of ventilator days, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. We further commented on use of lung protective ventilation and frequency of ventilator changes made in this cohort.ResultsWe enrolled 535 patients, of whom 525 met all inclusion criteria. Altered mental status without respiratory pathology was the most common reason for intubation, followed by trauma and respiratory failure. Using iterated Cox regression, a mortality effect occurred at ED time of mechanical ventilation > 7 hours, and the longer ED stay was also associated with a longer total duration of intubation. However, adjusted multivariable regression analysis demonstrated only older age and admission to the neurosciences ICU as independently associated with increased mortality. Of interest, only 23.8% of patients ventilated in the ED for over seven hours had changes made to their ventilator.ConclusionIn a prospective observational study of patients mechanically ventilated in the ED, there was a significant mortality benefit to expedited transfer of patients into an appropriate ICU setting.

Project description:PURPOSE:Sepsis is a common acute life-threatening condition that emergency physicians routinely face. Diagnostic options within the Emergency Department (ED) are limited due to lack of infrastructure, consequently limiting the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring or imaging tests. The mortality rate due to sepsis can be assessed via multiple scoring systems, for example, mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score and sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department (SPEED) score, both of which quantify the variation of mortality rates according to clinical findings, laboratory data, or therapeutic interventions. This study aims to improve the management processes of sepsis patients by comparing SPEED score and MEDS score for predicting the 28-day mortality in cases of emergency sepsis. METHODS:The study is a cross-sectional, prospective study including 61 sepsis patients in ED in Suez Canal University Hospital, Egypt, from August 2017 to June 2018. Patients were selected by two steps: (1) suspected septic patients presenting with at least one of the following abnormal clinical findings: (a) body temperature higher than 38 °C or lower than 36 °C, (b) heart rate higher than 90 beats/min, (c) hyperventilation evidenced by respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths/min or PaCO2 lower than 32 mmHg, and (d) white blood cell count higher than 12,000/?L or lower than 4000/?L; (2) confirmed septic patients with at least a 2-point increase from the baseline total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score following infection. Other inclusion criteria included adult patients with an age ?18 years regardless of gender and those who had either systemic inflammatory response syndrome or suspected/confirmed infection. Patients were shortly follow-up for the 28-day mortality. Each patient was subject to SPEED score and MEDS score and then the results were compared to detect which of them was more effective in predicting outcome. The receiver operating characteristic curves were also done for MEDS and SPEED scores. RESULTS:Among the 61 patients, 41 died with the mortality rate of 67.2%. The mortality rate increased with a higher SPEED and MEDS scores. Both SPEED and MEDS scores revealed significant difference between the survivors and nonsurvivors (p = 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively), indicating that both the two systems are effective in predicting the 28-day mortality of sepsis patients. Thereafter, the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted, which showed that SPEED was better than the MEDS score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve being 0.87 (0.788-0.963) as compared with 0.75 (0.634-0.876) for MEDS. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best fitting predictor of 28-day mortality for sepsis patients was the SPEED scoring system. For every one unit increase in SPEED score, the odds of 28-day mortality increased by 37%. CONCLUSION:SPEED score is more useful and accurate than MEDS score in predicting the 28-day mortality among sepsis patients. Therefore SPEED rather than MEDS should be more widely used in the ED for sepsis patients.

Dataset Information

COVID-19 risk index (CRI): a simple and validated emergency department risk score that predicts mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets