Accuracy of the pre-hospital triage tools (qSOFA, NEWS, and PRESEP) in predicting probable COVID-19 patients' outcomes transferred by Emergency Medical Services

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.

Comparison of prognostic scores for inpatients with COVID-19: a retrospective monocentric cohort study

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to a steep increase in hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for acute respiratory failure worldwide. Early identification of patients at risk of clinical deterioration is crucial in terms of appropriate care delivery and resource allocation. We aimed to evaluate and compare the prognostic performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Confusion, Uraemia, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure and Age ≥65 (CURB-65), Respiratory Rate and Oxygenation (ROX) index and Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (4C) score to predict death and ICU admission among patients admitted to the hospital for acute COVID-19 infection.

Methods and analysis

Consecutive adult patients admitted to the Geneva University Hospitals during two successive COVID-19 flares in spring and autumn 2020 were included. Discriminative performance of these prediction rules, obtained during the first 24 hours of hospital admission, were computed to predict death or ICU admission. We further exluded patients with therapeutic limitations and reported areas under the curve (AUCs) for 30-day mortality and ICU admission in sensitivity analyses.

Results

A total of 2122 patients were included. 216 patients (10.2%) required ICU admission and 303 (14.3%) died within 30 days post admission. 4C score had the best discriminatory performance to predict 30-day mortality (AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.85), compared with SOFA (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78), qSOFA (AUC 0.59, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.62), CURB-65 (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.78) and ROX index (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.72). ROX index had the greatest discriminatory performance (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83) to predict ICU admission compared with 4C score (AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.66), CURB-65 (AUC 0.60, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.64), SOFA (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.77) and qSOFA (AUC 0.59, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.62).

Conclusion

Scores including age and/or comorbidities (4C and CURB-65) have the best discriminatory performance to predict mortality among inpatients with COVID-19, while scores including quantitative assessment of hypoxaemia (SOFA and ROX index) perform best to predict ICU admission. Exclusion of patients with therapeutic limitations improved the discriminatory performance of prognostic scores relying on age and/or comorbidities to predict ICU admission.

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.

External validation of prognostic scores for COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study of patients hospitalized in Greater Paris University Hospitals

Purpose

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unparalleled influx of patients. Prognostic scores could help optimizing healthcare delivery, but most of them have not been comprehensively validated. We aim to externally validate existing prognostic scores for COVID-19.

Methods

We used “COVID-19 Evidence Alerts” (McMaster University) to retrieve high-quality prognostic scores predicting death or intensive care unit (ICU) transfer from routinely collected data. We studied their accuracy in a retrospective multicenter cohort of adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from January 2020 to April 2021 in the Greater Paris University Hospitals. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were computed for the prediction of the original outcome, 30-day in-hospital mortality and the composite of 30-day in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer.

Results

We included 14,343 consecutive patients, 2583 (18%) died and 5067 (35%) died or were transferred to the ICU. We examined 274 studies and found 32 scores meeting the inclusion criteria: 19 had a significantly lower AUC in our cohort than in previously published validation studies for the original outcome; 25 performed better to predict in-hospital mortality than the composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer; 7 had an AUC > 0.75 to predict in-hospital mortality; 2 had an AUC > 0.70 to predict the composite outcome.

Conclusion

Seven prognostic scores were fairly accurate to predict death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The 4C Mortality Score and the ABCS stand out because they performed as well in our cohort and their initial validation cohort, during the first epidemic wave and subsequent waves, and in younger and older patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06524-w.

Initial prehospital Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) to predict outcomes for COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

The Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) has not been widely studied for use in predicting outcomes of COVID-19 patients encountered in the prehospital setting. This study aimed to determine whether the first prehospital REMS could predict emergency department and hospital dispositions for COVID-19 patients transported by emergency medical services.

METHODS

This retrospective study used linked prehospital and hospital records from the ESO Data Collaborative for all 911-initiated transports of patients with hospital COVID-19 diagnoses from July 1 to December 31, 2020. We calculated REMS with the first recorded prehospital values for each component. We calculated area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for emergency department (ED) mortality, ED discharge, hospital mortality, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We determined optimal REMS cut-points using test characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Among 13,830 included COVID-19 patients, median REMS was 6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 5-9). ED mortality was <1% (n = 80). REMS ≥9 predicted ED death (AUROC 0.79). One-quarter of patients (n = 3,419) were discharged from the ED with an optimal REMS cut-point of ≤5 (AUROC 0.72). Eighteen percent (n = 1,742) of admitted patients died. REMS ≥8 optimally predicted hospital mortality (AUROC 0.72). Median hospital LOS was 8.3 days (IQR: 4.1-14.8 days). REMS ≥7 predicted hospitalizations ≥3 days (AUROC 0.62).

CONCLUSION

Initial prehospital REMS was modestly predictive of ED and hospital dispositions for patients with COVID-19. Prediction was stronger for outcomes more proximate to the first set of emergency medical services (EMS) vital signs. These findings highlight the potential value of first prehospital REMS for risk stratification of individual patients and system surveillance for resource planning related to COVID-19.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE

To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease.

DESIGN

Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model.

DATA EXTRACTION

At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool).

RESULTS

37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models.

CONCLUSION

Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245.

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.