External validation of the HACOR score and ROX index for predicting treatment failure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia managed on high-flow nasal cannula therapy: a multicenter retrospective observational study in Japan.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Intensive Care Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1186/s40560-024-00720-8
Hiromu Okano, Ryohei Yamamoto, Yudai Iwasaki, Daisuke Irimada, Daisuke Konno, Taku Tanaka, Takatoshi Oishi, Hiroki Nawa, Akihiko Yano, Hiroaki Taniguchi, Masayuki Otawara, Ayaka Matsuoka, Masanori Yamauchi
{"title":"External validation of the HACOR score and ROX index for predicting treatment failure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia managed on high-flow nasal cannula therapy: a multicenter retrospective observational study in Japan.","authors":"Hiromu Okano, Ryohei Yamamoto, Yudai Iwasaki, Daisuke Irimada, Daisuke Konno, Taku Tanaka, Takatoshi Oishi, Hiroki Nawa, Akihiko Yano, Hiroaki Taniguchi, Masayuki Otawara, Ayaka Matsuoka, Masanori Yamauchi","doi":"10.1186/s40560-024-00720-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The HACOR score for predicting treatment failure includes vital signs and acid-base balance factors, whereas the ROX index only considers the respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO<sub>2</sub>). We aimed to externally validate the HACOR score and ROX index for predicting treatment failure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in Japan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients, aged ≥ 18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with HFNC therapy between January 16, 2020, and March 31, 2022. The HACOR score and ROX index were calculated at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after stating HFNC therapy. The primary outcome was treatment failure (requirement for intubation or occurrence of death within 7 days). We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and assessed the diagnostic performance of these indicators. The 2-h time-point prediction was considered the primary analysis and that of other time-points as the secondary analysis. We also assessed 2-h time-point sensitivity and specificity using previously reported cutoff values (HACOR score > 5, ROX index < 2.85).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 300 patients from 9 institutions (median age, 60 years; median SpO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> ratio at the start of HFNC therapy, 121). Within 7 days of HFNC therapy, treatment failure occurred in 127 (42%) patients. The HACOR score and ROX index at the 2-h time-point exhibited AUROC discrimination values of 0.63 and 0.57 (P = 0.24), respectively. These values varied with temporal changes-0.58 and 0.62 at 6 h, 0.70 and 0.68 at 12 h, 0.68 and 0.69 at 24 h, and 0.75 and 0.75 at 48 h, respectively. The 2-h time-point sensitivity and specificity were 18% and 91% for the HACOR score, respectively, and 3% and 100% for the ROX index, respectively. Visual calibration assessment revealed well calibrated HACOR score, but not ROX index.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In COVID-19 patients receiving HFNC therapy in Japan, the predictive performance of the HACOR score and ROX index at the 2-h time-point may be inadequate. Furthermore, clinicians should be mindful of time-point scores owing to the variation of the models' predictive performance with the time-point. Trial registration UMIN (registration number: UMIN000050024, January 13, 2023).</p>","PeriodicalId":16123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10870626/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-024-00720-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The HACOR score for predicting treatment failure includes vital signs and acid-base balance factors, whereas the ROX index only considers the respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2). We aimed to externally validate the HACOR score and ROX index for predicting treatment failure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in Japan.

Methods: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study included patients, aged ≥ 18 years, diagnosed with COVID-19 and treated with HFNC therapy between January 16, 2020, and March 31, 2022. The HACOR score and ROX index were calculated at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after stating HFNC therapy. The primary outcome was treatment failure (requirement for intubation or occurrence of death within 7 days). We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and assessed the diagnostic performance of these indicators. The 2-h time-point prediction was considered the primary analysis and that of other time-points as the secondary analysis. We also assessed 2-h time-point sensitivity and specificity using previously reported cutoff values (HACOR score > 5, ROX index < 2.85).

Results: We analyzed 300 patients from 9 institutions (median age, 60 years; median SpO2/FiO2 ratio at the start of HFNC therapy, 121). Within 7 days of HFNC therapy, treatment failure occurred in 127 (42%) patients. The HACOR score and ROX index at the 2-h time-point exhibited AUROC discrimination values of 0.63 and 0.57 (P = 0.24), respectively. These values varied with temporal changes-0.58 and 0.62 at 6 h, 0.70 and 0.68 at 12 h, 0.68 and 0.69 at 24 h, and 0.75 and 0.75 at 48 h, respectively. The 2-h time-point sensitivity and specificity were 18% and 91% for the HACOR score, respectively, and 3% and 100% for the ROX index, respectively. Visual calibration assessment revealed well calibrated HACOR score, but not ROX index.

Conclusions: In COVID-19 patients receiving HFNC therapy in Japan, the predictive performance of the HACOR score and ROX index at the 2-h time-point may be inadequate. Furthermore, clinicians should be mindful of time-point scores owing to the variation of the models' predictive performance with the time-point. Trial registration UMIN (registration number: UMIN000050024, January 13, 2023).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测 2019 年冠状病毒性肺炎患者高流量鼻插管治疗失败的 HACOR 评分和 ROX 指数的外部验证:日本一项多中心回顾性观察研究。
背景:预测治疗失败的HACOR评分包括生命体征和酸碱平衡因素,而ROX指数只考虑呼吸频率、血氧饱和度和吸入氧分数(FiO2)。我们旨在从外部验证用于预测在日本接受高流量鼻插管(HFNC)治疗的2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者治疗失败的HACOR评分和ROX指数:这项回顾性、观察性、多中心研究纳入了 2020 年 1 月 16 日至 2022 年 3 月 31 日期间确诊为 COVID-19 并接受 HFNC 治疗的年龄≥ 18 岁的患者。在开始 HFNC 治疗后的 2、6、12、24 和 48 小时计算 HACOR 评分和 ROX 指数。主要结果是治疗失败(需要插管或 7 天内死亡)。我们计算了接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC),并评估了这些指标的诊断性能。2小时时点预测被视为主要分析,其他时点预测被视为次要分析。我们还使用之前报告的临界值(HACOR 评分 > 5,ROX 指数 结果)评估了 2 小时时间点的敏感性和特异性:我们分析了来自 9 家机构的 300 名患者(中位年龄为 60 岁;开始接受 HFNC 治疗时的中位 SpO2/FiO2 比率为 121)。在接受 HFNC 治疗的 7 天内,127 名患者(42%)出现治疗失败。2 小时时间点的 HACOR 评分和 ROX 指数的 AUROC 鉴别值分别为 0.63 和 0.57(P = 0.24)。这些数值随时间变化而变化,6 小时时分别为 0.58 和 0.62,12 小时时分别为 0.70 和 0.68,24 小时时分别为 0.68 和 0.69,48 小时时分别为 0.75 和 0.75。HACOR 评分的 2 小时时间点灵敏度和特异性分别为 18% 和 91%,ROX 指数的 2 小时时间点灵敏度和特异性分别为 3% 和 100% 。目视校准评估显示 HACOR 评分校准良好,但 ROX 指数校准不佳:结论:在日本接受 HFNC 治疗的 COVID-19 患者中,HACOR 评分和 ROX 指数在 2 小时时间点的预测性能可能不足。此外,由于模型的预测性能随时间点而变化,临床医生应注意时间点评分。试验注册 UMIN(注册号:UMIN000050024,2023 年 1 月 13 日)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
1.40%
发文量
51
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Intensive Care" is an open access journal dedicated to the comprehensive coverage of intensive care medicine, providing a platform for the latest research and clinical insights in this critical field. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including intensive and critical care, trauma and surgical intensive care, pediatric intensive care, acute and emergency medicine, perioperative medicine, resuscitation, infection control, and organ dysfunction. Recognizing the importance of cultural diversity in healthcare practices, "Journal of Intensive Care" also encourages submissions that explore and discuss the cultural aspects of intensive care, aiming to promote a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to patient care. By fostering a global exchange of knowledge and expertise, the journal contributes to the continuous improvement of intensive care practices worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine for cardiac surgery patients with noninvasive ventilation intolerance: a multicenter randomized controlled trial Association between red blood cell distribution width and 30-day mortality in critically ill septic patients: a propensity score-matched study Which factors are associated with acquired weakness in the ICU? An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Acute lung injury and post-cardiac arrest syndrome: a narrative review. Impact of sympathetic hyperactivity induced by brain microglial activation on organ damage in sepsis with chronic kidney disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1