Predictive performance of SOFA and qSOFA for in-hospital mortality in severe novel coronavirus disease

The Comparative Impact of Liberal Versus Conservative Oxygenation in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study

Objectives Whether a higher or lower partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) could impact outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a matter of debate. So, we planned this retrospective analysis to determine if a higher or lower partial pressure of oxygen in blood had any effect on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Material and method The records of COVID-19 patients from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2022 were scanned. Patients were sub-grouped into two groups based on the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) values on arterial blood gas (ABG), i.e., high PaO2 group, PaO2 value of 80-100 mm Hg, and low PaO2 group, PaO2 value of 60-80 mm Hg for the first 48 hours after the initiation of oxygenation and/or mechanical ventilation. The two groups were compared in terms of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to the fraction of inspiratory oxygen (FiO2) concentration (P/F ratio), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at presentation and after 48 hours, and clinical outcomes, including mortality, time of mortality, extubation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and change in Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Results SOFA score was significantly higher in the low PaO2 group as compared to the high PaO2 group both at baseline (4.59 {1.79} versus 5.51 {1.15}; p-value: 0.005) and at 48 hours (3.06 {1.39} versus 5.11 {2.13}; p-value: 0.007). However, the change in SOFA score over 48 hours did not achieve statistical significance (-1.000 {0.97} versus 0.53 {2.34}; p-value: 0.257). Out of a total of 37 patients, 21 patients died in the high PaO2 group, while 18 patients died in the low PaO2 group. Conclusion Our study highlights that targeting either low or high arterial oxygen content while considering oxygen therapy for COVID-19 patients did not significantly alter the outcomes.

Ageism and Dementia-ism in Health Care: A Proposed Framework to Guide Treatment Decisions in Frail Older Persons

Global population ageing underscores the imperative of ageism and dementia-ism in the heath care setting as there is both anecdotal and published evidence that older persons are liable to receive less than optimum evidence-based treatments on account of their age and apparent frailty. This article explores the reasons for this phenomenon and limitations of current approaches of clinical decision making. We propose a framework to guide decision making to optimize care, with a paradigm shift in redefining a default toward clinical practice guideline-recommended treatments, guided by evidence-based medicine within an ethical means-end proportionality framework, and regularly reviewed advance care plans and goals of care conversations to secure the best interests of older persons.

SCARLET (Supplemental Citicoline Administration to Reduce Lung injury Efficacy Trial): study protocol for a single-site, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and randomized Phase 1/2 trial of i.v. citicoline (CDP-choline) in hospitalized SARS CoV-2-infected patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

The SARS CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in more than 1.1 million deaths in the USA alone. Therapeutic options for critically ill patients with COVID-19 are limited. Prior studies showed that post-infection treatment of influenza A virus-infected mice with the liponucleotide CDP-choline, which is an essential precursor for de novo phosphatidylcholine synthesis, improved gas exchange and reduced pulmonary inflammation without altering viral replication. In unpublished studies, we found that treatment of SARS CoV-2-infected K18-hACE2-transgenic mice with CDP-choline prevented development of hypoxemia. We hypothesize that administration of citicoline (the pharmaceutical form of CDP-choline) will be safe in hospitalized SARS CoV-2-infected patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (HARF) and that we will obtain preliminary evidence of clinical benefit to support a larger Phase 3 trial using one or more citicoline doses.

METHODS

We will conduct a single-site, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and randomized Phase 1/2 dose-ranging and safety study of Somazina® citicoline solution for injection in consented adults of any sex, gender, age, or ethnicity hospitalized for SARS CoV-2-associated HARF. The trial is named "SCARLET" (Supplemental Citicoline Administration to Reduce Lung injury Efficacy Trial). We hypothesize that SCARLET will show that i.v. citicoline is safe at one or more of three doses (0.5, 2.5, or 5 mg/kg, every 12 h for 5 days) in hospitalized SARS CoV-2-infected patients with HARF (20 per dose) and provide preliminary evidence that i.v. citicoline improves pulmonary outcomes in this population. The primary efficacy outcome will be the SpO2:FiO2 ratio on study day 3. Exploratory outcomes include Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, dead space ventilation index, and lung compliance. Citicoline effects on a panel of COVID-relevant lung and blood biomarkers will also be determined.

DISCUSSION

Citicoline has many characteristics that would be advantageous to any candidate COVID-19 therapeutic, including safety, low-cost, favorable chemical characteristics, and potentially pathogen-agnostic efficacy. Successful demonstration that citicoline is beneficial in severely ill patients with SARS CoV-2-induced HARF could transform management of severely ill COVID patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov on 5/31/2023 (NCT05881135).

TRIAL STATUS

Currently enrolling.

The COVIDTW2 study: Role of COVID-19 vaccination in intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccines have reduced the risk of disease progression to respiratory failure or death. However, in patients with breakthrough infections requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, the effect of prior COVID-19 vaccination on mortality remains inconclusive.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed data on patients intubated due to COVID-19 pneumonia between May 1, 2022 and October 31, 2022. Receipt of two or more doses of vaccine were considered as fully vaccinated. The primary outcome was the time from intubation to all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) mortality.

RESULT

A total of 84 patients were included (40 fully vaccinated versus 44 controls). The baseline characteristics, including age, comorbidities, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on the day of intubation were similar between the two groups. The difference in ICU mortality rate between the fully vaccinated and control groups was not significant (35 % vs. 25 %, P = 0.317; hazard ratio with 95 % confidence interval = 1.246 (0.575-2.666), P = 0.571). The SOFA score (hazard ratio: 1.319, P = 0.001) and body mass index (BMI) (hazard ratio: 0.883, P = 0.022) were significantly associated with ICU mortality.

CONCLUSION

Being fully vaccinated was not associated with a mortality benefit in intubated patients with COVID-19. A higher SOFA score on the day of intubation and lower BMI were poor prognostic factors.

Evaluation of three common scoring systems in COVID-19 patients: neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), and C-reactive protein (CRP)

Background

As SARS-CoV-2 becomes a major global health, the authors aimed to predict the severity of the disease, the length of hospitalization, and the death rate of COVID-19 patients based on The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) criteria, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to prioritize, and use them for special care facilities.

Methods

In a retrospective study, 369 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in the ICU from March 2021 to April 2022, were evaluated. In addition to the APACHE II score, several of laboratory factors, such as CRP and NLR, were measured.

Results

The values of CRP, NLR, and APACHE II scores were significantly higher in hospitalized and intubated patients, as well as those who died 1 month and 3 months after hospital discharge than those in surviving patients. The baseline NLR levels were the strongest factor that adversely affected death in the hospital, death 1 month and 3 months after discharge, and it was able to predict death, significantly.

Conclusion

CRP, NLR, and APACHE II were all linked to prognostic factors in COVID-19 patients. NLR was a better predictor of disease severity, the need for intubation, and death than the other two scoring tools.

Predictive performance of SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) and qSOFA (quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) for in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with COVID-19 of referral center in the north of Iran a retrospective study

Introduction

Patients diagnosed with Coronavirus disease 2019 exhibit varied clinical outcomes, with a reported mortality rate exceeding 30% in those requiring admission to the ICU. The objective of this study was to assess the predictive capacity of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores in determining mortality risk among severe COVID-19 patients.

Method and materials

This retrospective study was performed by analyzing the data of patients with COVID-19 who were hospitalized in the ICUs. Data collection of the parameters required to calculate the SOFA and qSOFA Scores were extracted from patient's medical records. All data analysis was performed using SPSS V.25. Significance level considered as P less than 0.05.

Findings

In this study, 258 patients were included. The results showed that the subjects ranged in age from 21 to 98 years with a mean and SD of 62.7±15.6. Of all patients, 127 (49.2%) were female and the rest were male. The mortality rate was 102 (39.5%). The underlying disease of diabetes mellitus with an odds ratio of 1.81 (CI=1.02-3.22) had a significant effect on mortality. In addition, a significant correlation was obtained between admission duration and SOFA score (r=0.147, P=0.018). The SOFA had a very high accuracy of 0.941 and at the cut-off point less than 5 had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.2% and 82.7%. In addition, qSOFA had high accuracy (0.914) and a sensitivity and specificity of 87.3% and 91.7% at the optimal cutting point of greater than 1.

Conclusion

The findings of present study illustrated that deceased COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU had higher scores on both SOFA and qSOFA scales than surviving patients. Also, both scales have high sensitivity and specificity for anticipating of mortality in these patients. The underlying diabetes mellitus was associated with an increase in patient mortality.

Increased carotid intima-media thickness is associated with higher odds of unfavorable outcomes in adults without advanced vascular diseases presenting with non-severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a nested case-control study

AIM

To evaluate the association between carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) at hospital admission and unfavorable outcomes in adults without advanced vascular diseases presenting with non-severe COVID-19 pneumonia to assess the feasibility of evaluating CIMT as a risk stratification aid in this setting.

METHODS

This proof-of-concept nested case-control study enrolled consecutive non-vaccinated adults free of advanced vascular diseases presenting with verified non-severe COVID-19 pneumonia between December 2020 and June 2021. CIMT was measured at admission, and patients were managed in line with the national Ministry of Health guidelines. Those who died or required mechanical ventilation (MV) during the index hospital stay were considered cases and were matched (entropy balancing, exact matching) on a set of covariates to survivors not requiring MV (controls). Frequentist and Bayesian logistic models were fitted to the case status.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 207 patients: 27 (13%) cases and 180 controls. All were retained in the analysis after entropy balancing, while 27 cases were exactly matched to 99 controls. Higher CIMT at the proximal internal carotid artery (both left and right) was consistently associated with higher odds of being a case: all odds ratio point-estimates were ≥1.50 with lower limits of the 99% confidence intervals/credibility intervals ≥1.00 with two-sided probabilities of OR>1.00 greater than 99.5%. The susceptibility of the estimates to unmeasured confounding was low.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the feasibility of CIMT as a risk stratification aid in adults free of advanced vascular disease presenting with non-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Comparison of Six Scoring Systems for Predicting In-hospital Mortality among Patients with SARS-COV2 Presenting to the Emergency Department

Background

The study aimed to compare the prognostic accuracy of six different severity-of-illness scoring systems for predicting in-hospital mortality among patients with confirmed SARS-COV2 who presented to the emergency department (ED). The scoring systems assessed were worthing physiological score (WPS), early warning score (EWS), rapid acute physiology score (RAPS), rapid emergency medicine score (REMS), national early warning score (NEWS), and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA).

Materials and methods

A cohort study was conducted using data obtained from electronic medical records of 6,429 confirmed SARS-COV2 patients presenting to the ED. Logistic regression models were fitted on the original severity-of-illness scores to assess the models' performance using the Area Under the Curve for ROC (AUC-ROC) and Precision-Recall curves (AUC-PR), Brier Score (BS), and calibration plots were used to assess the models' performance. Bootstrap samples with multiple imputations were used for internal validation.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 64 years (IQR:50-76) and 57.5% were male. The WPS, REMS, and NEWS models had AUROC of 0.714, 0.705, and 0.701, respectively. The poorest performance was observed in the RAPS model, with an AUROC of 0.601. The BS for the NEWS, qSOFA, EWS, WPS, RAPS, and REMS was 0.18, 0.09, 0.03, 0.14, 0.15, and 0.11 respectively. Excellent calibration was obtained for the NEWS, while the other models had proper calibration.

Conclusion

The WPS, REMS, and NEWS have a fair discriminatory performance and may assist in risk stratification for SARS-COV2 patients presenting to the ED. Generally, underlying diseases and most vital signs are positively associated with mortality and were different between the survivors and non-survivors.

How to cite this article

Rahmatinejad Z, Hoseini B, Reihani H, Hanna AA, Pourmand A, Tabatabaei SM, et al. Comparison of Six Scoring Systems for Predicting In-hospital Mortality among Patients with SARS-COV2 Presenting to the Emergency Department. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(6):416-425.

Stratifying risk outcomes among adult COVID-19 inpatients with high flow oxygen: The R4 score

BACKGROUND

High flow oxygen therapy (HFO) is a widely used intervention for pulmonary complications. Amid the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, HFO became a popular alternative to conventional oxygen supplementation therapies. Risk stratification tools have been repurposed -and new ones developed- to estimate outcome risks among COVID-19 patients. This study aims to provide a simple risk stratification system to predict invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death among COVID-19 inpatients on HFO.

METHODS

Among 529 adult inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia, we selected unadjusted clinical risk factors for developing the composite endpoint of IMV or death. The risk for the primary outcome by each category was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Bootstrapping was used to validate the results.

RESULTS

Age above 62, eGFR under 60 ml/min, room air SpO2 ≤89 % upon admission, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, and any comorbidity (cancer, cardiovascular disease, COPD/ asthma, hypothyroidism, or autoimmune disease) were considered for the score. Each of the six criteria scored 1 point. The score was further simplified into 4 categories: 1) 0 criteria, 2) 1 criterion, 3) 2-3 criteria, and 4) ≥4 criteria. Taking the first category as the reference, risk estimates for the primary endpoint were HR; 2.94 [1.67 - 5.26], 4.08 [2.63 - 7.05], and 6.63 [3.74 - 11.77], respectively. In ROC analysis, the AUC for the model was 0.72.

CONCLUSIONS

Our score uses simple criteria to estimate the risk for IMV or death among COVID-19 inpatients with HFO. Higher category reflects consistent increases in risk for the endpoint.

Serial SOFA-score trends in ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients as predictor of 28-day mortality: A prospective cohort study

Background and Aim

The efficacy of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score as predictor of clinical outcomes among ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients is still controversial. We aimed to assess whether SOFA-score in different time intervals could predict 28-day mortality compared with other well-acknowledged risk factors of COVID-19 mortality.

Methods

This observational prospective cohort was conducted on 1057 patients from March 2020 to March 2022 at Masih Daneshvari Hospital, Iran. The univariate and multivariate Cox proportional analysis were performed to assess the hazards of SOFA-score models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were designed to estimate the predictive values.

Results

Mean SOFA-score during first 96 h (HR: 3.82 [CI: 2.75-5.31]), highest SOFA-score (HR: 2.70 [CI: 1.93-3.78]), and initial SOFA-score (HR: 1.65 [CI: 1.30-2.11]) had strongest association with 28-day mortality (p < .0001). In contrast, SOFA scores at 48 and 96 h as well as Δ-SOFA: 48-0 h and Δ-SOFA: 96-0 h did not show significant correlations. Among them, merely mean SOFA-score (HR: 2.28 [CI: 2.21-3.51]; p < .001) remained as independent prognosticator on multivariate regression analysis; though having less odds of predicting value compared with age (HR: 3.81 [CI: 1.98-5.21]), hypertension (HR: 3.11 [CI: 1.26-3.81]), coronary artery disease [CAD] (HR: 2.82 [CI: 1.51-4.8]), and diabetes mellitus (HR: 2.45 [CI: 1.36-2.99]). The area under ROC (AUROC) for mean SOFA-score (0.77) and highest SOFA-score (0.71) were larger than other SOFA intervals. Calculating the first 96 h of SOFA trends, it was obtained that fatality rate was <12.3% if the score dropped, between 28.8% and 46.29% if the score remained unchanged, and >50.45% if the score increased.

Conclusion

To predict the 28-day mortality among ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients, mean SOFA upon first 96 h of ICU stay is reliable; while having inadequate accuracy comparing with well-acknowledged COVID-19 mortality predictors (age, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, CAD). Notably, increased SOFA levels in the course of first 96 h of ICU-admission, prognosticate at least 50% fatality regardless of initial SOFA score.

Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncertainties.

A Novel COVID-19 Severity Score is Associated With Survival in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy

INTRODUCTION

Tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 is a controversial and difficult clinical decision. We hypothesized that a recently validated COVID-19 Severity Score (CSS) would be associated with survival in patients considered for tracheostomy.

METHODS

We reviewed 77 mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients evaluated for decision for percutaneous dilational tracheostomy (PDT) from March to June 2020 at a public tertiary care center. Decision for PDT was based on clinical judgment of the screening surgeons. The CSS was retrospectively calculated using mean biomarker values from admission to time of PDT consult. Our primary outcome was survival to discharge, and all patient charts were reviewed through August 31, 2021. ROC curve and Youden index were used to estimate an optimal cut-point for survival.

RESULTS

The mean CSS for 42 survivors significantly differed from that of 35 nonsurvivors (CSS 52 versus 66, P = 0.003). The Youden index returned an optimal CSS of 55 (95% confidence interval 43-72), which was associated with a sensitivity of 0.8 and a specificity of 0.6. The median CSS was 40 (interquartile range 27, 49) in the lower CSS (<55) group and 72 (interquartile range 66, 93) in the high CSS (≥55 group). Eighty-seven percent of lower CSS patients underwent PDT, with 74% survival, whereas 61% of high CSS patients underwent PDT, with only 41% surviving. Patients with high CSS had 77% lower odds of survival (odds ratio = 0.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1-0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher CSS was associated with decreased survival in patients evaluated for PDT, with a score ≥55 predictive of mortality. The novel CSS may be a useful adjunct in determining which COVID-19 patients will benefit from tracheostomy. Further prospective validation of this tool is warranted.

The role of prone positioning in patients with SARS-CoV-2-related respiratory failure in non-intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning (PP) is an established and commonly used lung recruitment method for intubated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, with potential benefits in clinical outcome. The role of PP outside the intensive care unit (ICU) setting is debated.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed at assessing the role of PP in death and ICU admission in non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure related to COronaVIrus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of a collaborative multicenter database obtained by merging local non-interventional cohorts.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure were included in a collaborative cohort and classified based on the severity of respiratory failure according to the partial arterial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) and on clinical severity by the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. The primary study outcome was the composite of in-hospital death or ICU admission within 30 days from hospitalization.

RESULTS

PP was used in 114 of 536 study patients (21.8%), more commonly in patients with lower PaO₂/FiO₂ or receiving non-invasive ventilation and less commonly in patients with known comorbidities. A primary study outcome event occurred in 163 patients (30.4%) and in-hospital death in 129 (24.1%). PP was not associated with death or ICU admission (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.78-1.74) and not with death (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.61-1.67) at multivariable analysis; PP was an independent predictor of ICU admission (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.53-4.40). The lack of association between PP and death or ICU admission was confirmed at propensity score-matching analysis.

CONCLUSION

PP is used in a non-negligible proportion of non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related severe respiratory failure and is not associated with death but with ICU admission. The role of PP in this setting merits further evaluation in randomized studies.

Predictors of Mortality in COVID-19 patients: An observational study

Objectives

To identify the factors that affect outcome in COVID-19 patients in the Pakistani population.

Methods

A total of 225 patients of COVID-19 RT-PCR proven were included during November, 2020 to June, 2021 in this cross-sectional study. They were stratified into different disease severity categories as per WHO guidelines. The characteristics of survivors and non survivors were recorded and then compared to draw conclusions.

Results

Mean age was 59 years. Majority of the patients were male (68%) and the overall mortality rate was 30.1%. The non survivors were more likely to be female, had a greater number of comorbidities, had a higher respiratory rate and lower oxygen saturations at presentation and had a greater frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation. Non survivors had higher values of TLC, CRP, D-dimers and lower values of Hemoglobin and Platelets. The non survivors had higher incidence of ARDS, Septic shock and Multiorgan involvement. A higher CURB-65 score was observed in non survivors as compared to those who survived. Multivariate analysis showed that female gender, presence of and higher number of comorbid conditions and a higher CURB-65 score was linked with mortality.

Conclusion

Results are compatible with international studies; increasing age, number of comorbid conditions and high inflammatory markers are associated with increased mortality. Our study had an exception that female gender had higher mortality as compared to men.

A practical scoring model to predict the occurrence of critical illness in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection

Background

The variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have emerged repeatedly, especially the Omicron strain which is extremely infectious, so early identification of patients who may develop critical illness will aid in delivering proper treatment and optimizing use of resources. We aimed to develop and validate a practical scoring model at hospital admission for predicting which patients with Omicron infection will develop critical illness.

Methods

A total of 2,459 patients with Omicron infection were enrolled in this retrospective study. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to evaluate predictors associated with critical illness. Moreover, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), continuous net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination index were assessed.

Results

The derivation cohort included 1721 patients and the validation cohort included 738 patients. A total of 98 patients developed critical illness. Thirteen variables were independent predictive factors and were included in the risk score: age > 65, C-reactive protein > 10 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase > 250 U/L, lymphocyte < 0.8*10^⁹/L, white blood cell > 10*10^⁹/L, Oxygen saturation < 90%, malignancy, chronic kidney disease, chronic cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, and non-vaccination. AUROC in the derivation cohort and validation cohort were 0.926 (95% CI, 0.903-0.948) and 0.907 (95% CI, 0.860-0.955), respectively. Moreover, the critical illness risk scoring model had the highest AUROC compared with CURB-65, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and 4C mortality scores, and always obtained more net benefit.

Conclusion

The risk scoring model based on the characteristics of patients at the time of admission to the hospital may help medical practitioners to identify critically ill patients and take prompt measures.

Remdesivir for Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Severe Pneumonia: A National Cohort Study (Remdeco-19)

BACKGROUND

Given the rapidly evolving pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, authorities focused on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggested the potential utility of remdesivir in the framework of an early access program. REMDECO-19 is a multicenter national cohort study assessing the ability of remdesivir to improve the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective real-life study that included all patients from the early access program of remdesivir in France. The primary endpoint was the clinical course evolution of critically ill and hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. Secondary endpoints were the SOFA score evolution within 29 days following the admission and mortality at 29 and 90 days.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were enrolled in 22 sites from January to April 2020. The median WHO and SOFA scores were respectively reduced by two and six points between days 1 and 29. Improvement in the WHO-CPS and the SOFA score were observed in 83.5% and 79.3% of patients, respectively, from day 10. However, there was no effect of remdesivir on the 90-day survival based on the control cohort for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with invasive ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

SOFA score appeared to be an attractive approach to assess remdesivir efficacy and stratify its utilization or not in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study brings a new clinical benchmark for therapeutic decision making and supports the use of remdesivir for some hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Physiologic Scoring Systems in Predicting the COVID-19 Patients' one-month Mortality; a Prognostic Accuracy Study

Introduction : It is critical to quickly and easily identify severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and predict their mortality. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of the physiologic scoring systems in predicting the mortality of COVID-19 patients. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was performed on COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). The clinical characteristics of the participants were collected by the emergency physicians and the accuracy of the Quick Sequential Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Coronavirus Clinical Characterization Consortium (4C) Mortality, National Early Warning Score-2 (NEWS2), and Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (PRIEST) scores for mortality prediction was evaluated. Results: Nine hundred and twenty-one subjects were included. Of whom, 745 (80.9%) patients survived after 30 days of admission. The mean age of patients was 59.13 ± 17.52 years, and 550 (61.6%) subjects were male. Non-Survived patients were significantly older (66.02 ± 17.80 vs. 57.45 ± 17.07, P< 0.001) and had more comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, respiratory, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular disease) in comparison with survived patients. For COVID-19 mortality prediction, the AUROCs of PRIEST, qSOFA, NEWS2, and 4C Mortality score were 0.846 (95% CI [0.821-0.868]), 0.788 (95% CI [0.760-0.814]), 0.843 (95% CI [0.818-0.866]), and 0.804 (95% CI [0.776-0.829]), respectively. All scores were good predictors of COVID-19 mortality. Conclusion: All studied physiologic scores were good predictors of COVID-19 mortality and could be a useful screening tool for identifying high-risk patients. The NEWS2 and PRIEST scores predicted mortality in COVID-19 patients significantly better than qSOFA.

SOFA Score in relation to Sepsis: Clinical Implications in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognostic Assessment

Purpose

To analyze the clinical significance of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic assessment of sepsis.

Methods

140 patients with sepsis from January 2020 to January 2021 were selected as the observation group, and 40 healthy people were selected as the control group. The observation group was divided into mild group, severe group, and septic shock group by single blind grouping according to the condition of the disease, and they were also divided into survival group and death group according to the prognosis. Collect the fasting venous blood of the subjects in each group in the morning, compare the levels of total bilirubin (TBIL), blood creatinine (CR), and platelet count (PLT) in each group, and record and compare the patients' respiratory system oxygen partial pressure/inhaled oxygen concentration (po2/fio2), acute physiology and chronic health scoring system II (APACHE II), sequential organ failure assessment (sofa) score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score; Pearson analysis was used to analyze the correlation between SOFA score and other indicators; multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the prognostic risk factors of patients with sepsis; receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to analyze the value of SOFA score alone and in combination in the diagnosis, condition, and prognosis of sepsis.

Results

There were significant differences in Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score map, po2/fio2, PLT, GCS, TBIL, and serum creatinine (SCR) between the control group and the observation group (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score, mean arterial pressure (map) po2/fio2, PLT, Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), TBIL, SCR, and △SOFA score among patients in mild, severe, and septic shock groups (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in age, Apache II score, SOFA score, q-SOFA score, map, po2/fio2, PLT, GCS, TBIL, SCR, and △SOFA score between survival group and death group (P < 0.05). SOFA score and q-SOFA score were significantly positively correlated with TBIL and SCR and significantly negatively correlated with po2/fio2 and PLT; △SOFA score was significantly negatively correlated with TBIL and SCR and significantly positively correlated with map, po2/fio2, PLT, and GCS. Apache II score, SOFA score, and q-SOFA score were independent risk factors for sepsis patients, and △SOFA score, po2/fio2, and GCS score were protective factors (P < 0.05). ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC of sepsis combined with SOFA score and q-SOFA score was 0.880; the AUC of sepsis assessed by SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score was 0.929; the AUC of sepsis prognosis assessed by SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score was 0.900.

Conclusion

SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score were abnormally expressed in patients with sepsis and were risk factors for the severity of the patient's condition and prognosis. The SOFA score, q-SOFA score, and △SOFA score were risk factors for the severity and prognosis of patients with sepsis and had some value in diagnosing sepsis and assessing the condition and prognosis, of which the combined value of the three was higher.

Clinical features and mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU according to SOFA score

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) could function as an effective risk stratification tool in the admission of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and would allow stratification based on a risk assessment. We aimed to examine whether the SOFA score is useful to define 2 severity profiles in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU: mild with SOFA < 5, and severe with SOFA ≥ 5. A retrospective cohort, multicenter study was conducted from February 11 to May 11, 2020. We analyzed patients admitted to all ICUs of the 14 public hospitals of the Castilla-La Mancha Health Service at the beginning of the pandemic and with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the level of severity by SOFA at admission to the ICU. Cox regression was used to evaluate factors associated with survival and Kaplan-Meier test to examine survival probability. In total, 405 patients with a complete SOFA panel were recruited in the 14 participating ICUs. SOFA <5 group showed that age above 60 years and D-dimer above 1000 ng/mL were risk factors associated with lower survival. In SOFA ≥ 5 it was found that high blood pressure was a risk factor associated with shorter survival. Kaplan-Meier showed lower survival in SOFA ≥ 5 in combination with high blood pressure, time since viral symptom onset to admission in ICU < 7 days, D-dimer ≥1000 ng/mL and respiratory pathology. However, SOFA < 5 showed only higher age (≥60 years) associated with lower survival. Age over 60 years and D-dimer over 1000 ng/mL were risk factors reflecting lower survival in patients with SOFA < 5. Moreover, SOFA ≥ 5 patients within a week after COVID-19 onset and comorbidities such as high blood pressure and previous respiratory pathology showed lower survival.

COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation (C-TIME): A system for predicting mortality of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia at the time they require mechanical ventilation

Background

An accurate system to predict mortality in patients requiring intubation for COVID-19 could help to inform consent, frame family expectations and assist end-of-life decisions.

Research objective

To develop and validate a mortality prediction system called C-TIME (COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation) using variables available before intubation, determine its discriminant accuracy, and compare it to acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE IVa) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA).

Methods

A retrospective cohort was set in 18 medical-surgical ICUs, enrolling consecutive adults, positive by SARS-CoV 2 RNA by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or positive rapid antigen test, and undergoing endotracheal intubation. All were followed until hospital discharge or death. The combined outcome was hospital mortality or terminal extubation with hospice discharge. Twenty-five clinical and laboratory variables available 48 hours prior to intubation were entered into multiple logistic regression (MLR) and the resulting model was used to predict mortality of validation cohort patients. Area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) was calculated for C-TIME, APACHE IVa and SOFA.

Results

The median age of the 2,440 study patients was 66 years; 61.6 percent were men, and 50.5 percent were Hispanic, Native American or African American. Age, gender, COPD, minimum mean arterial pressure, Glasgow Coma scale score, and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, maximum creatinine and bilirubin, receiving factor Xa inhibitors, days receiving non-invasive respiratory support and days receiving corticosteroids prior to intubation were significantly associated with the outcome variable. The validation cohort comprised 1,179 patients. C-TIME had the highest AUROC of 0.75 (95%CI 0.72–0.79), vs 0.67 (0.64–0.71) and 0.59 (0.55–0.62) for APACHE and SOFA, respectively (Chi² P<0.0001).

Conclusions

C-TIME is the only mortality prediction score specifically developed and validated for COVID-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation. It has acceptable discriminant accuracy and goodness-of-fit to assist decision-making just prior to intubation. The C-TIME mortality prediction calculator can be freely accessed on-line at https://phoenixmed.arizona.edu/ctime.

Development of COVID-19 severity assessment score in adults presenting with COVID-19 to the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Critically-ill Covid-19 patients require extensive resources which can overburden a healthcare system already under strain due to a pandemic. A good disease severity prediction score can help allocate resources to where they are needed most.

OBJECTIVES

We developed a Covid-19 Severity Assessment Score (CoSAS) to predict those patients likely to suffer from mortalities within 28 days of hospital admission. We also compared this score to Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) in adults.

METHODS

CoSAS includes the following 10 components: Age, gender, Clinical Frailty Score, number of comorbidities, Ferritin level, D-dimer level, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive Protein levels, systolic blood pressure and oxygen saturation. Our study was a single center study with data collected via chart review and phone calls. 309 patients were included in the study.

RESULTS

CoSAS proved to be a good score to predict Covid-19 mortality with an Area under the Curve (AUC) of 0.78. It also proved better than qSOFA (AUC of 0.70). More studies are needed to externally validate CoSAS.

CONCLUSION

CoSAS is an accurate score to predict Covid-19 mortality in the Pakistani population.

Características y desenlaces clínicos de pacientes con COVID-19 en la primera ola en Cali, Colombia

Introducción

En diciembre de 2019 se reportaron los primeros casos de neumonía por SARS-CoV-2 en el mundo. En Colombia se reportó el primer caso de COVID-19, importado de Italia, el 6 de marzo de 2020; posteriormente, la transmisión del virus aumentó de forma exponencial afectando en mayor medida algunas regiones, como las ciudades de Cali y Buenaventura. El objetivo de este estudio es describir las características y desenlaces clínicos de pacientes con COVID-19 en 2 instituciones de alta complejidad en Cali, Colombia.

Métodos

Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo, revisando los registros electrónicos clínicos de pacientes con diagnóstico de COVID-19 que fueron ingresados a diferentes servicios de atención sanitaria en la ciudad de Cali entre el 23 de marzo y el 31 de agosto de 2020.

Resultados

Se atendieron un total de 2.428 pacientes con síntomas indicativos de COVID-19 en las instituciones prestadoras de salud participantes. La mediana de edad global fue de 60 años, y las comorbilidades más comunes fueron hipertensión arterial, diabetes y enfermedad pulmonar crónica. Hubo 1.247 pacientes con infección confirmada por COVID-19; el 44,19% de los pacientes requirieron hospitalización en piso, el 12,91% de los pacientes fueron trasladados a la Unidad de Cuidado Intensivo y el 42,9% fueron atendidos de manera ambulatoria.

Conclusiones

La mortalidad hospitalaria en general fue del 22,94% y las observaciones anotadas sobre factores relacionados con desenlace desfavorable o fatal de pacientes diagnosticados con COVID-19 en este estudio son el género masculino, la edad mayor de 60 años, la presencia de 2 o más comorbilidades y un qSOFA con punto de corte > 1.

Predictive Value of SOFA and qSOFA for In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: A Single-Center Study in Romania

Two years after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disease continues to claim victims worldwide. Assessing the disease’s severity on admission may be useful in reducing mortality among patients with COVID-19. The present study was designed to assess the prognostic value of SOFA and qSOFA scoring systems for in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19. The study included 133 patients with COVID-19 proven by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) admitted to the Municipal Emergency Clinical Hospital of Timisoara, Romania between 1 October 2020 and 15 March 2021. Data on clinical features and laboratory findings on admission were collected from electronic medical records and used to compute SOFA and qSOFA. Mean SOFA and qSOFA values were higher in the non-survivor group compared to survivors (3.5 vs. 1 for SOFA and 2 vs. 1 for qSOFA, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were performed to determine the discrimination accuracy, both risk scores being excellent predictors of in-hospital mortality, with ROC–AUC values of 0.800 for SOFA and 0.794 for qSOFA. The regression analysis showed that for every one-point increase in SOFA score, mortality risk increased by 1.82 and for every one-point increase in qSOFA score, mortality risk increased by 5.23. In addition, patients with SOFA and qSOFA above the cut-off values have an increased risk of mortality with ORs of 7.46 and 11.3, respectively. In conclusion, SOFA and qSOFA are excellent predictors of in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients. These scores determined at admission could help physicians identify those patients at high risk of severe COVID-19.

Clinical analysis on diagnostic accuracy of Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care test and evaluation of cycle threshold at admission for COVID-19 risk assessment

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care (POC) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests have the ability to improve testing efficiency in the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, real-world data on POC tests is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) POC test in a clinical setting and examine the prognostic value of cycle threshold (CT) on admission on the length of hospital stay (LOS) in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Patients hospitalised between January and May 2021 were included in this prospective cohort study. Patients' nasopharyngeal swabs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 with Allplex™2019-nCoV (Seegene Inc.) real-time (RT) PCR assay as gold standard as well as a novel POC test (Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 [Bosch]) and the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche) accordingly. Clinical sensitivity and specificity as well as inter- and intra-assay variability were analyzed.

RESULTS

120 patients met the inclusion criteria with 46 (38%) having a definite COVID-19 diagnosis by RT-PCR. Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 POC had a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 96%. The inter- and intra- assay variability was below 15%. The CT value at baseline was lower in patients with LOS ≥ 10 days when compared to patients with LOS < 10 days (27.82 (± 4.648) vs. 36.2 (25.9-39.18); p = 0.0191). There was a negative correlation of CT at admission and LOS (r[44]s = - 0.31; p = 0.038) but only age was associated with the probability of an increased LOS in a multiple logistic regression analysis (OR 1.105 [95% CI, 1.03-1.19]; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that POC testing with Bosch Vivalytic SARS-CoV-2 is a valid strategy to identify COVID-19 patients and decrease turnaround time to definite COVID-19 diagnosis. Also, our data suggest that age at admission possibly with CT value as a combined parameter could be a promising tool for risk assessment of increased length of hospital stay and severity of disease in COVID-19 patients.

CURB-65, qSOFA, and SIRS Criteria in Predicting In-Hospital Mortality of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients; a Prognostic Accuracy Study

INTRODUCTION

Outcome prediction of intensive care unit (ICU)-admitted patients is one of the important issues for physicians. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Confusion, Urea, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure and Age Above or Below 65 Years (CURB-65), and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) scores in predicting the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

This prognostic accuracy study was performed on 225 ICU-admitted patients with a definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 from July to December 2021 in Tehran, Iran. The patients' clinical characteristics were evaluated at the time of ICU admission, and they were followed up until discharge from ICU. The screening performance characteristics of CURB-65, qSOFA, and SIRS in predicting their mortality was compared.

RESULTS

225 patients with the mean age of 63.27±14.89 years were studied (56.89% male). The in-hospital mortality rate of this series of patients was 39.10%. The area under the curve (AUC) of SIRS, CURB-65, and qSOFA were 0.62 (95% CI: 0.55 - 0.69), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.59 - 0.73), and 0.61(95% CI: 0.54 - 0.67), respectively (p = 0.508). In cut-off ≥1, the estimated sensitivity values of SIRS, CURB-65, and qSOFA were 85.23%, 96.59%, and 78.41%, respectively. The estimated specificity of scores were 34.31%, 6.57%, and 38.69%, respectively. In cut-off ≥2, the sensitivity values of SIRS, CURB-65, and qSOFA were evaluated as 39.77%, 87.50%, and 15.91%, respectively. Meanwhile, the specificity of scores were 72.99%, 34.31%, and 92.70%.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems that the performance of SIRS, CURB-65, and qSOFA is similar in predicting the ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. However, the sensitivity of CURB-65 is higher than qSOFA and SIRS.

A New Early Predictor of Fatal Outcome for COVID-19 in an Italian Emergency Department: The Modified Quick-SOFA

Background: Since 2019, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is causing a rapidly spreading pandemic. The present study aims to compare a modified quick SOFA (MqSOFA) score with the NEWS-2 score to predict in-hospital mortality (IHM), 30-days mortality and recovery setting. Methods: All patients admitted from March to October 2020 to the Emergency Department of St. Anna Hospital, Ferrara, Italy with clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were retrospectively included in this single-centre study and evaluated with the MqSOFA and NEWS-2 scores. Statistical and logistic regression analyses were applied to our database. Results: A total of 3359 individual records were retrieved. Among them, 2716 patients were excluded because of a negative nasopharyngeal swab and 206 for lacking data; thus, 437 patients were eligible. The data showed that the MqSOFA and NEWS-2 scores equally predicted IHM (p < 0.001) and 30-days mortality (p < 0.001). Higher incidences of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular accidents, dementia, chronic kidney disease and cancer were found in the deceased vs. survived group. Conclusions: In this study we confirmed that the MqSOFA score was non-inferior to the NEWS-2 score in predicting IHM and 30-days mortality. Furthermore, the MqSOFA score was easier to use than NEWS-2 and is more suitable for emergency settings. Neither the NEWS-2 nor the MqSOFA scores were able to predict the recovery setting.

Predictive Value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), and New Early Warning Signs (NEWS-2) Scores Estimate Mortality of COVID-19 Patients Requiring Intensive Care Unit (ICU)

Introduction

Various mortality predictive score models for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) have been deliberated. We studied how sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), and new early warning signs (NEWS-2) scores estimate mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 53 patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. We calculated qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE II, and NEWS-2 on initial admission and re-evaluated on day 5. We performed logistic regression analysis to differentiate the predictors of qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE II, and NEWS-2 scores on mortality.

Result

qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE II, and NEWS-2 scores on day 5 exhibited a difference between survivors and nonsurvivors (p <0.05), also between ICU and non-ICU admission (p <0.05). The initial NEWS-2 revealed a higher AUC value than the qSOFA, APACHE II, and SOFA score in estimating mortality (0.867; 0.83; 0.822; 0.794). In ICU, APACHE II score revealed a higher AUC value than the SOFA, NEWS-2, and qSOFA score (0.853; 0.832; 0.813; 0.809). Concurrently, evaluation on day 5 showed that qSOFA AUC had higher scores than the NEWS-2, APACHE II, and SOFA (0.979; 0.965; 0.939; 0.933) in predicting mortality, while SOFA and APACHE II AUC were higher in ICU admission than NEWS-2 and qSOFA (0.968; 0.964; 0.939; 0.934). According to the cutoff score, APACHE II on day 5 revealed the highest sensitivity and specificity in predicting the mortality (sensitivity 95.7%, specificity 86.7%).

Conclusion

All scores signify good predictive values on COVID-19 patients mortality following the evaluation on the day 5. Nonetheless, APACHE-II appears to be the best at predicting mortality and ICU admission rate.

How to cite this article

Asmarawati TP, Suryantoro SD, Rosyid AN, Marfiani E, Windradi C, Mahdi BA, et al. Predictive Value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, and New Early Warning Signs Scores Estimate Mortality of COVID-19 Patients Requiring Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):464–471.

Mortality Predictive Value of APACHE II and SOFA Scores in COVID-19 Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Background. COVID-19 pandemic has become a global dilemma since December 2019. Are the standard scores, such as acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, accurate for predicting the mortality rate of COVID-19 or the need for new scores? We aimed to evaluate the mortality predictive value of APACHE II and SOFA scores in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods. In a cohort study, we enrolled 204 confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units at the Imam Khomeini hospital complex. APACHE II on the first day and daily SOFA scoring were performed. The primary outcome was the mortality rate in the nonsurvived and survived groups, and the secondary outcome was organ dysfunction. Two groups of survived and nonsurvived patients were compared by the chi-square test for categorical variables and an independent sample t-test for continuous variables. We used logistic regression models to estimate the mortality risk of high APACHE II and SOFA scores. Result. Among 204 severe COVID-19 patients, 114 patients (55.9%) expired and 169 patients (82.8%) had at least one comorbidity that 103 (60.9%) of them did not survive ( $P=0.002$ ). Invasive mechanical ventilation and its duration were significantly different between survived and nonsurvived groups ( $P\le 0.001$ and $P=0.002$ , respectively). Mean APACHE II and mean SOFA scores were significantly higher in the nonsurvived than in the survived group (14.4 ± 5.7 vs. 9.5 ± 5.1, $P\le 0.001$ , 7.3 ± 3.1 vs. 3.1 ± 1.1, $P\le 0.001$ , respectively). The area under the curve was 89.5% for SOFA and 73% for the APACHE II score. Respiratory diseases and malignancy were risk factors for the mortality rate ( $P=0.004$ and $P=0.007$ , respectively) against diabetes and hypertension. Conclusion. The daily SOFA was a better mortality predictor than the APACHE II in critically ill COVID-19 patients. But they could not predict death with high accuracy. We need new scoring with consideration of the prognostic factors and daily evaluation of changes in clinical conditions.

Renal recovery after acute kidney injury in a minority population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to characterize survivors of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and acute kidney injury (AKI) that recover their renal function or progress to acute kidney disease (AKD) on discharge; and determine factors associated with progression to AKD during hospital stay.One thousand seventy four patients with COVID-19 infection were followed up until discharge/death. The incidence of AKI was 59.7%. Two hundred and sixty-six patients were discharged alive and included in the analysis, 71.8% had renal recovery (RR) while 28.2% were discharged with AKD. The AKD subset has higher rate of chronic kidney disease (CKD) ≥3 (33.4% vs 14.1%, P = .001), congestive heart failure (18.7% vs 5.8%, P = .001), use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (10.7% vs 3.7%, P = .026) and vasopressors (25.3% vs 12.0%, P = .007). Of 19 patients in the AKI survivor cohort who received renal replacement therapy, 1 had RR while 18 progressed to AKD on discharge. Predictors to progression to AKD were CKD ≥3 (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.59-6.56, P = .001), congestive heart failure (OR: 4.59, 95% CI 1.76-11.78, P = .002), AKI on admission (OR: 2.71, 95% CI, 1.14-6.46, P = .025), and ongoing diarrhea (OR: 3.19, 95% CI, 1.02-9.96, P = .025).This study demonstrates a higher proportion of RR among survivors of COVID-19 infection in our minority predominant cohort. Early identification and appropriate management of patients at-risk to progress to AKD could improve outcomes, reduce long term sequalae of CKD/end stage renal disease, and have a major impact on health outcome and financial strain on healthcare system.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients Aged 80 Years or Older Receiving Non-Invasive Respiratory Support for Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure Consequent to COVID-19

As the clinical outcome of octogenarian patients hospitalised for COVID-19 is very poor, here we assessed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 80 year or older hospitalised for COVID-19 receiving non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS). A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted in seven hospitals in Northern Italy. All patients aged ≥80 years with COVID-19 associated hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) undergoing NIRS between 24 February 2020, and 31 March 2021, were included. Out of 252 study participants, 156 (61.9%) and 163 (64.6%) died during hospital stay and within 90 days from hospital admission, respectively. In this case, 228 (90.5%) patients only received NIRS (NIRS group), while 24 (9.5%) were treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) after NIRS failure (NIRS+IMV group). In-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between NIRS and NIRS+IMV group (61.0% vs. 70.8%, respectively; p = 0.507), while survival probability at 90 days was significantly higher for NIRS compared to NIRS+IMV patients (0.379 vs. 0.147; p = 0.0025). The outcome of octogenarian patients with COVID-19 receiving NIRS is quite poor. Caution should be used when considering transition from NIRS to IMV after NIRS failure.

Glucose dysregulation and its association with COVID-19 mortality and hospital length of stay

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We investigate the impact of blood glucose on mortality and hospital length of stay (HLOS) among COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 456 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and glycemic dysregulation in the New York City area.

RESULTS

We found that impaired glucose adjusted for other organs systems involved (OR:1.87; 95% CI:1.36-2.57, p < 0.001), increased glucose nadir (OR:34.28; 95% CI:3.97-296.05, p < 0.01) and abnormal blood glucose levels at discharge (OR:5.07; 95% CI:2.31-11.14, p < 0.001) were each significantly associated with increased odds for mortality. New or higher from baseline insulin requirement during hospitalization (OR:0.34; 95% CI:0.15-0.78; p < 0.05) was significantly associated with decreased odds for mortality. Increased glucose peak (B = 0.001, SE=<0.001, p < 0.001), new or higher from baseline insulin requirement during hospitalization (B = 0.11, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001), and increased days to dysglycemia (B = 0.15, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001) were each significantly associated with increased HLOS. Increased glucose nadir (B = -0.67, SE = 0.07, p < 0.001), insulin intravenous drip (B = -0.10, SE = 0.05, p < 0.05), and increased proportion days endocrine system involved (B = -0.25, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001) were each significantly associated with decreased HLOS.

CONCLUSION

Glucose dysregulation adversely affects mortality and HLOS in COVID-19. These data can help clinicians to guide patient treatment and management in COVID-19 patients.

Patient Information Items Needed to Guide the Allocation of Scarce Life-Sustaining Resources: A Delphi Study of Multidisciplinary Experts

OBJECTIVE

Plans for allocation of scarce life-sustaining resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic often include triage teams, but operational details are lacking, including what patient information is needed to make triage decisions.

METHODS

A Delphi study among Washington state disaster preparedness experts was performed to develop a list of patient information items needed for triage team decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts proposed and rated their agreement with candidate information items during asynchronous Delphi rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. Qualitative analysis was used to describe considerations arising in this deliberation. A timed simulation was performed to evaluate feasibility of data collection from the electronic health record.

RESULTS

Over 3 asynchronous Delphi rounds, 50 experts reached consensus on 24 patient information items, including patients' age, severe or end-stage comorbidities, the reason for and timing of admission, measures of acute respiratory failure, and clinical trajectory. Experts weighed complex considerations around how information items could support effective prognostication, consistency, accuracy, minimizing bias, and operationalizability of the triage process. Data collection took a median of 227 seconds (interquartile range = 205, 298) per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts achieved consensus on patient information items that were necessary and appropriate for informing triage teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Predictive ability of severity scores and outcomes for mortality in kidney transplant recipients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the intensive care unit: results from a Brazilian single-center cohort study

Abstract Background: the predictive ability of severity scores for mortality in patients admitted to intensive care units is not well-known among kidney transplanted (KT) patients, especially those diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the predictive ability of severity scores for mortality in KT recipients. Methods: 51 KT recipients with COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled. The performance of the SOFA, SAPS 3, and APACHE IV tools in predicting mortality after COVID-19 was compared by the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) and univariate Cox regression analysis was performed. Results: The 90-day cumulative incidence of death was 63.4%. Only APACHE IV score differed between survivors and nonsurvivors: 91.2±18.3 vs. 106.5±26.3, P = 0.03. The AUC- ROC of APACHE IV for predicting death was 0.706 (P = 0.04) and 0.656 (P = 0.06) at 7 and 90 days, respectively. Receiving a kidney from a deceased donor (HR = 3.16; P = 0.03), troponin levels at admission (HR for each ng/mL = 1.001; P = 0.03), APACHE IV score (HR for each 1 point = 1.02; P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (MV) requirement (HR = 3.04; P = 0.002) and vasopressor use on the first day after ICU admission (HR = 3.85; P < 0.001) were associated with the 90-day mortality in the univariate analysis. Conclusion: KT recipients had high mortality, which was associated with type of donor, troponin levels, early use of vasopressors, and MV requirement. The other traditional severity scores investigated could not predict mortality.

Prospective predictive performance comparison between clinical gestalt and validated COVID-19 mortality scores

Most COVID-19 mortality scores were developed at the beginning of the pandemic and clinicians now have more experience and evidence-based interventions. Therefore, we hypothesized that the predictive performance of COVID-19 mortality scores is now lower than originally reported. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the current predictive accuracy of six COVID-19 scores and compared it with the accuracy of clinical gestalt predictions. 200 patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a tertiary hospital in Mexico City between September and December 2020. The area under the curve (AUC) of the LOW-HARM, qSOFA, MSL-COVID-19, NUTRI-CoV, and NEWS2 scores and the AUC of clinical gestalt predictions of death (as a percentage) were determined. In total, 166 patients (106 men and 60 women aged 56±9 years) with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the analysis. The AUC of all scores was significantly lower than originally reported: LOW-HARM 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) vs 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98), qSOFA 0.61 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.69) vs 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81), MSL-COVID-19 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.73) vs 0.72 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.75), NUTRI-CoV 0.60 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.69) vs 0.79 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.82), NEWS2 0.65 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.75) vs 0.84 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.90), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73) vs 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.85). Clinical gestalt predictions were non-inferior to mortality scores, with an AUC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.77). Adjusting scores with locally derived likelihood ratios did not improve their performance; however, some scores outperformed clinical gestalt predictions when clinicians' confidence of prediction was <80%. Despite its subjective nature, clinical gestalt has relevant advantages in predicting COVID-19 clinical outcomes. The need and performance of most COVID-19 mortality scores need to be evaluated regularly.

Analysis of epidemiological and clinical profile in COVID-19 deaths in a tertiary care ICU setup: a retrospective observational study

There are numerous publications describing the epidemiology and clinical outcome of patients infected with COVID-19. However, limited studies solely describing the fatalities, especially in India. In this retrospective, single-centre analysis of patients’ case records, we aim to describe and discuss the demographics, clinical, laboratory findings in 201 patients who expired as a result of SARS CoV-2 infection. Electronic medical files of all confirmed COVID-19 patients, admitted to the ICU between 1st February 2020 and 15th July 2020, were scanned retrospectively and data was collected from files of the fatalities only, without revealing patient identity at any point. The data, including demographics (age, sex, comorbidities), clinical presentation, baseline laboratory parameters, SOFA score and duration of illness was recorded and analyzed statistically. A total of 201 deceased patients were included in the study, out of which 58.2% were males. The median age was 59 years (IQR: 47.5 – 65 years) which appears to be less than a lot of studies conducted outside India. Majority of patients had classical influenza-like symptoms at presentation (74.1%), but a sizable number also had extra-pulmonary manifestations (24.9%). Eight patients had isolated neurological presentation. It was found that number of comorbidities increased, and duration of illness decreased with increasing age, and this was statistically significant (p 0.03 and 0.01, respectively). SOFA score was found to be an important marker of severity of illness in COVID patients. ARDS remained the primary cause of death in 87.1% patients, although septic shock was observed in 34.8%. Six patients expired due to a high suspicion of pulmonary thromboembolism.

Evaluation of Bacterial Coinfection and Antibiotic Resistance in Patients with COVID-19 Under Mechanical Ventilation

Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 are principally at risk of emerging superinfections, particularly those caused by Gram-negative bacteria. Therefore, in this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the presence of bacteria in endotracheal aspirate samples in severe COVID-19 patients under mechanical ventilation between 20 February 2020 and 21 September 2020 in Mazandaran Heart Center Hospital, Iran. Outcomes were compared between ICU patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (corona group) and those who suffer from other disease (non-corona group). Out of 38 subjects who met the diagnostic criteria for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in ICU, 22 and 16 patients in corona and non-corona groups, respectively, were enrolled in the study. Hospital length of stay in 27% of case in corona group was > 10 days. Also, SOFA score was > 10 in 64% and 25% of corona and non-corona groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Moreover, the number of death was significantly higher among corona patients (45%) than non-corona group (6%) in ICU (P < 0.05). Acinetobacter spp. were the most common bacteria in nine corona patients (41%) that were 100% resistant to amikacin, gentamycin, cefixime, and imipenem antibiotics. The prevalence of antibiotic resistance among pathogens isolated from patients with COVID-19 under mechanical ventilation in ICU highlighted the importance of preventing coinfections caused by this pathogen, suggesting an essential standardized approach to antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19 for successful treatment.

A Novel Approach for COVID-19 Patient Condition Tracking: From Instant Prediction to Regular Monitoring

Purpose: The aim of this research is to develop an accurate and interpretable aggregated score not only for hospitalization outcome prediction (death/discharge) but also for the daily assessment of the COVID-19 patient's condition. Patients and Methods: In this single-center cohort study, real-world data collected within the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic was used (27.04.2020-03.08.2020 and 01.11.2020-19.01.2021, respectively). The first wave data (1,349 cases) was used as a training set for the score development, while the second wave data (1,453 cases) was used as a validation set. No overlapping cases were presented in the study. For all the available patients' features, we tested their association with an outcome. Significant features were taken for further analysis, and their partial sensitivity, specificity, and promptness were estimated. Sensitivity and specificity were further combined into a feature informativeness index. The developed score was derived as a weighted sum of nine features that showed the best trade-off between informativeness and promptness. Results: Based on the training cohort (median age ± median absolute deviation 58 ± 13.3, females 55.7%), the following resulting score was derived: APTT (4 points), CRP (3 points), D-dimer (4 points), glucose (4 points), hemoglobin (3 points), lymphocytes (3 points), total protein (6 points), urea (5 points), and WBC (4 points). Internal and temporal validation based on the second wave cohort (age 60 ± 14.8, females 51.8%) showed that a sensitivity and a specificity over 90% may be achieved with an expected prediction range of more than 7 days. Moreover, we demonstrated high robustness of the score to the varying peculiarities of the pandemic. Conclusions: An extensive application of the score during the pandemic showed its potential for optimization of patient management as well as improvement of medical staff attentiveness in a high workload stress. The transparent structure of the score, as well as tractable cutoff bounds, simplified its implementation into clinical practice. High cumulative informativeness of the nine score components suggests that these are the indicators that need to be monitored regularly during the follow-up of a patient with COVID-19.

Management Measures Implemented at the West China Hospital may help Prevent and Contain COVID-19 and Similar Outbreaks

This article presents management processes for dealing with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak at the West China Hospital of Sichuan University. From January to March 2020, the West China Hospital of Sichuan University established response structures and protocols, as well as integrated out-of-hospital resources, to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak. A total of 8066 patients were screened, and 345 COVID-19 patients were isolated for treatment. Hospital command systems, emergency management protocols, as well as process, space, and personnel management, strengthening material reserves, and social responsibility strategies were implemented. Outbreak management aspects that required improvement included estimates of the anticipated number of cases, timely collection of patient information and feedback on the effect of outreach and online consultation methods.

Frequency and Impact of Preadmission Digestive Symptoms on Outcome in Severe COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study

Background

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) commonly presents with respiratory symptoms. However, symptoms involving the digestive system may be present, significance of which is not well studied in the Indian scenario.

Methods

This prospective observational cohort study included consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to intensive care unit of our tertiary care hospital from September 9, 2020, to March 14, 2021. We evaluated the frequency of preadmission digestive symptoms and compared the demographic, clinical, laboratory parameters, and organ failure at admission and during intensive care along with mortality between those with and without digestive symptoms. In the digestive group, we sought to find predictors of mortality.

Results

Digestive symptoms were present in 76/234 (32.4%) with severe COVID-19 infection. In comparison to nondigestive group, digestive patients had higher need for noninvasive ventilation (p 0.028), invasive lines (68%, p 0.003), vasopressors (64%, p 0.01), blood product transfusion (21.1%, p <0.001), and heart failure (55.4%, p 0.041). Confounding factors of alcohol abuse, smoking, sedentary lifestyle as a causative agent for heart failure could not be ruled out. Proportional mortality rate is higher in the digestive group (65.8%, p = 0.015). Mortality is multifactorial with preadmission abdominal pathologies (HR 4.3) or central nervous system (CNS)-related comorbidities (HR 2.829), presentation with multiple digestive symptoms (HR 6.9), higher sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) score at admission (HR 1.258) and discharge (HR 1.162), and presence of acute kidney injury (AKI) Grade 3 (HR 2.95) as predictors of mortality. After adjusting for all confounders, need for vasopressor was observed to be associated with 11.58 times higher risk of mortality.

Conclusion

Preadmission digestive symptoms may be associated with a turbulent illness with invasive interventions, heart failure, and greater proportional mortality in severe COVID-19. AKI Grade 3 is identified as a preventable risk factor predicting mortality. CTRI/2021/03/032325.

How to cite this article

Karna ST, Singh P, Revadi G, Khurana A, Shivhare A, Saigal S, et al. Frequency and Impact of Preadmission Digestive Symptoms on Outcome in Severe COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(11):1247–1257.

Factors That Influence Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Multicenter Study in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection has a high mortality rate and continues to be a global threat, which warrants the identification of all mortality risk factors in critically ill patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study conducted in five hospitals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). We enrolled patients with confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection admitted to any of the intensive care units from the five hospitals between March 2020 and July 2020, corresponding to the peak of recorded COVID-19 cases in the KSA.

RESULTS

In total, 229 critically ill patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in the study. The presenting symptoms and signs of patients who died during hospitalization were not significantly different from those observed among patients who survived. The baseline comorbidities that were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality were diabetes (62% vs. 48% among patients who died and survived (p = 0.046)), underlying cardiac disease (38% vs. 19% (p = 0.001)), and underlying kidney disease (32% vs. 12% (p < 0.001)).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, the baseline comorbidities that were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality were diabetes, underlying cardiac disease, and underlying kidney disease. Additionally, the factors that independently influenced mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients were high Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT )and international normalization ratio (INR), acidosis, and high ferritin.

Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: A non-randomized comparative study with historical control in a referral hospital in Indonesia

Background

Studies to confirm the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma (CP) as an adjunctive treatment for COVID-19 are still required especially for the countries where standard treatments are unevenly distributed.

Methods

A non-randomized comparative study was done from June – September 2020 in Dr. Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Plasma with anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG titer of >1:320 were used. Primary end points were clinical and laboratory parameters outcome including BGA, chest X-ray, CT value, CRP, procalcitonin, IL-6, D-Dimer and ALC examined on day 1, 2 and 7 post-transfusion.

Results

The experimental arm of this study consisted of 15 patients who received CP: 3 (20%) with moderate COVID-19 and 12 (80%) with severe COVID-19. There were 15 historical controls in this study. Ten recipients survived and 5 deceased (survival rate was 66.7%). There were higher rate of pneumonia resolution (OR 1.54, CI95% 0.33–7.23), ARDS resolution (OR 1.20, CI95% 0.25–5.84) and shorter median length of stay (20 vs 22 days, p = 0.41) among recipients compared to controls. Lower mortality rate was observed in recipients vs controls (33.3% vs 46.7% (OR 0.75, CI95% 0.17–3.33)). Median death onset was longer in recipient vs control (7^th vs 1^st day, p = 0.13). Survival analysis showed protective effect of CP (HR 0.69, CI 95% 0.21–2.27, p = 0.545). Higher CT value improvement (p = 0.51) and negative conversion rate (OR1.20, CI95% 0.25–5.84) were observed in recipients compared to controls. Sub-analysis showed more number of comorbidities, higher procalcitonin and higher D-Dimer among CP recipients who did not survive (p = 0.02 and p = 0.02 respectively). Lower CRP and procalcitonin, and higher ALC were found in survivors compared to non-survivors (p = 0.0437; p = 0.0049; and p = 0.0002 respectively).

Conclusion

This study showed promising results for CP marked by improvements in clinical outcome, as well as significant reduction of inflammatory markers among recipients.

Mortality Prediction of COVID-19 Patients at Intensive Care Unit Admission

Background

Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) have mortality rates between 30%-50%. Identifying patient factors associated with mortality can help identify critical patients early and treat them accordingly.

Patients and methods

In this retrospective study, the records of patients admitted to the COVID-19 ICU in a single tertiary care hospital from April 2020 to September 2020 were analysed. The clinical and laboratory parameters between patients who were discharged from the hospital (survival cohort) and those who died in the hospital (mortality cohort) were compared. A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed to identify parameters associated with mortality. 

Results

A total of 147 patients were included in the study. The age of the patients was 55 (45, 64), median (IQR), years. At admission, 23 (16%) patients were on mechanical ventilation and 73 (50%) were on non-invasive ventilation. Sixty patients (40%, 95% CI: 32.8 to 49.2%) had died. Patients who died had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI): 3 (2, 4) vs. 2 (1, 3), p = 0.0019, and a higher admission sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score: 5 (4, 7) vs. 4 (3, 4), p < 0.001. Serum urea, serum creatinine, neutrophils on differential leukocyte count, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (N/L ratio), D-dimer, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and C-reactive protein were higher in the mortality cohort. The ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen, platelet count, lymphocytes on differential leukocyte count, and absolute lymphocyte count was lower in the mortality cohort. The parameters and cut-off values used for the multivariate logistic regression model included CCI > 2, SOFA score > 4, D-dimer > 1346 ng/mL, LDH > 514 U/L and N/L ratio > 27. The final model had an area under the curve of 0.876 (95% CI: 0.812 to 0.925), p < 0.001 with an accuracy of 78%. All five parameters were found to be independently associated with mortality. 

Conclusions

CCI, SOFA score, D-dimer, LDH, and N/L ratio are independently associated with mortality. A model incorporating the combination of these clinical and laboratory parameters at admission can predict COVID-19 ICU mortality with good accuracy.

Predictive Value of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score across Patients with and without COVID-19 Infection

Rationale

Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores are commonly used in crisis standards of care policies to assist in resource allocation. The relative predictive value of SOFA by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection status and among racial and ethnic subgroups within patients infected with COVID-19 is unknown.

Objectives

To evaluate the accuracy and calibration of SOFA in predicting hospital mortality by COVID-19 infection status and across racial and ethnic subgroups.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult admissions to the University of Miami Hospital and Clinics inpatient wards (July 1, 2020–April 1, 2021). We primarily considered maximum SOFA within 48 hours of hospitalization. We assessed accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and created calibration belts. Considered subgroups were defined by COVID-19 infection status (by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction testing) and prevalent racial and ethnic minorities. Comparisons across subgroups were made with DeLong testing for discriminative accuracy and visualization of calibration belts.

Results

Our primary cohort consisted of 20,045 hospitalizations, of which 1,894 (9.5%) were COVID-19 positive. SOFA was similarly accurate for COVID-19–positive (AUROC, 0.835) and COVID-19–negative (AUROC, 0.810; P = 0.15) admissions but was slightly better calibrated in patients who were positive for COVID-19. For those with critical illness, maximum SOFA score accuracy at critical illness onset also did not differ by COVID-19 status (AUROC, COVID-19 positive vs. negative: intensive care unit admissions, 0.751 vs. 0.775; P = 0.46; mechanically ventilated, 0.713 vs. 0.792, P = 0.13), and calibration was again better for patients positive for COVID-19. Among patients with COVID-19, SOFA accuracy was similar between the non-Hispanic White population (AUROC, 0.894) and racial and ethnic minorities (Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.824 [P vs. non-Hispanic White = 0.05]; non-Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.800 [P = 0.12]; Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.948 [P = 0.31]). This similar accuracy was also found for those without COVID-19 (non-Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.829; Hispanic White population: AUROC, 0.811 [P = 0.37]; Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.828 [P = 0.97]; non-Hispanic Black population: AUROC, 0.867 [P = 0.46]). SOFA was well calibrated for all racial and ethnic groups with COVID-19 but estimated mortality more variably and performed less well across races and ethnicities without COVID-19.

Conclusions

SOFA accuracy does not differ by COVID-19 status and is similar among racial and ethnic groups both with and without COVID-19. Calibration is better for COVID-19–infected patients and, among those without COVID-19, varies by race and ethnicity.

The predictive value of serum level of cystatin C for COVID-19 severity

To investigate the potential prognostic value of Serum cystatin C (sCys C) in patients with COVID-19 and determine the association of sCys C with severe COVID-19 illness. We performed a retrospective review of medical records of 162 (61.7 ± 13.5 years) patients with COVID-19. We assessed the predictive accuracy of sCys C for COVID-19 severity by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The participants were divided into two groups based on the sCys C cut-off value. We evaluated the association between high sCys C level and the development of severe COVID-19 disease, using a COX proportional hazards regression model. The area under the ROC curve was 0.708 (95% CI 0.594-0.822), the cut-off value was 1.245 (mg/L), and the sensitivity and specificity was 79.1% and 60.7%, respectively. A multivariable Cox analysis showed that a higher level of sCys C (adjusted HR 2.78 95% CI 1.25-6.18, p = 0.012) was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing a severe COVID-19 illness. Patients with a higher sCys C level have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Our findings suggest that early assessing sCys C could help to identify potential severe COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 Palliative and End-of-Life Care Plan: Development and Audit of Outcomes

Objectives:

Palliative care (PC) referral in serious and critical COVID-19 improves decision-making, health resource utilisation, end-of-life symptom management and family support. In this study, we explored developing a systematic decision-making matrix for PC referral in COVID-19 and audited its outcomes.

Materials and Methods:

A team of interdisciplinary experts developed a hospital COVID-19 PC plan. PC referral and outcomes of PC referral in hospitalised COVID-19 patients were audited.

Results:

Out of 1575 inpatients, 1066 (67.7%) had mild and 509 (32.3%) had serious and critical COVID-19 illness. Among 50 (3.1%) referred to PC, 5 (0.4%) had mild and 45 (8.8%) had serious and critical COVID-19 illness. Out of 45 serious and critical COVID-19 patients referred to PC, 38 (84%) received end-of-life care (EOLC), 4 (9%) self-discharged against medical advice and 3 (7%) recovered. Forty-seven (94%) were referred for goals-of-care discussion. About 78% received opioids, 70% benzodiazepines and 42% haloperidol for symptom management. Among 45 serious and critical COVID-19 patients referred to PC, foregoing life-sustaining treatment was documented in 43 (96%) but implemented only in 23 (53%). Out of 38 who received EOLC, ICU was the place of death in 31 (82%) and ward in 7 (18%).

Conclusion:

Despite interdisciplinary experts developing a hospital COVID-19 PC, low referral of serious and critical COVID-19 patients to PC was observed. PC referral enabled access to management of end-of-life symptoms and facilitated limitation of life-sustaining treatment in some COVID-19 patients with serious illness. Educating critical care physicians about the scope of PC in the COVID-19 setting might improve PC referral.

Early Determinants of Length of Hospital Stay: A Case Control Survival Analysis among COVID-19 Patients admitted in a Tertiary Healthcare Facility of East India

BACKGROUND

Length of hospital stay (LOS) for a disease is a vital estimate for healthcare logistics planning. The study aimed to illustrate the effect of factors elicited on arrival on LOS of the COVID-19 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It was a retrospective, record based, unmatched, case control study using hospital records of 334 COVID-19 patients admitted in an East Indian tertiary healthcare facility during May to October 2020. Discharge from the hospital (cases/survivors) was considered as an event while death (control/non-survivors) as right censoring in the case-control survival analysis using cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Overall, we found the median LOS for the survivors to be 8 days [interquartile range (IQR): 7-10 days] while the same for the non-survivors was 6 days [IQR: 2-11 days]. In the multivariable cox-proportional hazard model; travel distance (>16 km) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.69, 95% CI: (0.50-0.95)], mode of transport to the hospital (ambulance) [aHR: 0.62, 95% CI: (0.45-0.85)], breathlessness (yes) [aHR: 0.56, 95% CI: (0.40-0.77)], number of co-morbidities (1-2) [aHR: 0.66, 95% CI: (0.47-0.93)] (≥3) [aHR: 0.16, 95% CI: (0.04-0.65)], COPD/asthma (yes) [ [aHR: 0.11, 95% CI: (0.01-0.79)], DBP (<60/≥90) [aHR: 0.55, 95% CI: (0.35-0.86)] and qSOFA score (≥2) [aHR: 0.33, 95% CI: (0.12-0.92)] were the significant attributes affecting LOS of the COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

Factors elicited on arrival were found to be significantly associated with LOS. A scoring system inculcating these factors may be developed to predict LOS of the COVID-19 patients.