The Presence of Ambulatory Hypoxia as an Early Predictor of Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Disease

Introduction

Coronavirus-induced-disease-2019 (COVID-19) has caused a pandemic with 56,178,674 cases and 1,348,348 deaths worldwide.¹ In our experience, we noted many inpatients with COVID-19 first exhibit hypoxia with exertion, then subsequently develop moderate to severe disease requiring nasal cannula or more advanced oxygen therapies. Early COVID-19 induces occult lung damage, noted by peripheral ground-glass opacities on imaging.² We suspect patients at this stage exhibit ambulatory but not resting hypoxia. Several studies have characterized risk factors for severe COVID-19 based on patient-specific comorbidities and laboratory data. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated ambulatory hypoxia in absence of resting hypoxia as a risk factor for development of moderate to severe disease. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate if ambulatory hypoxia is associated with COVID-19 progression.

Methods

We performed a retrospective observational study of adults (age >18 years) hospitalized with COVID-19 who had ambulatory oxygen measurements (without first developing resting hypoxia) at Northwestern Medicine (NM) between March 1, 2020 and October 30, 2020. NM is an integrated academic medical system in the Chicagoland area with 10 affiliated hospitals. We compared the associations between patients with and without ambulatory hypoxia and the use of nasal cannula (NC) or advanced oxygenation therapy [defined as high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP), mechanical ventilation (vent) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)]. We evaluated the time from the measurement of ambulatory hypoxia to initiation of NC and advanced oxygenation therapies. This study was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board.

Results

Our study included 531 patients with ambulatory oximetry measurements prior to oxygenation outcomes. Of these, 132 patients (24.9%) had ambulatory hypoxia. NC was required by 28.8% of patients with ambulatory hypoxia, compared to 8.0% of patients without it (p=2.4×10⁻⁹). Advanced oxygenation therapy was required by 18.9% of patients with ambulatory hypoxia, compared to 2.3% without it (p=4.6×10⁻¹¹). Demographic and clinical variables are listed in Table 1.

Multiple logistic and Poisson regression results confirmed that the presence of ambulatory hypoxia was strongly associated with the likelihood of using NC (OR 4.8, 95% CI 2.8 – 8.4) and advanced oxygenation (IRR 7.7, 95% CI 3.4 – 17.5); Table 2. Results were unchanged in the sensitivity analysis. Ambulatory hypoxia preceded NC use by a median 12.5 hours [IQR 3.25, 29.25] and advanced oxygenation therapies by 54 hours [IQR 25, 82].

Discussion

Our study shows that the presence of ambulatory hypoxia in absence of resting hypoxia is strongly associated with the subsequent development of moderate to severe COVID-19. In our patient population, ambulatory hypoxia occurred several hours before the need for NC and advanced oxygen therapies. This is important because it may enable clinicians to start therapeutic treatments such as remdesivir⁵ and/or dexamethasone⁶ earlier. It may also help health systems effectively identify patients most likely to require ICU-level care, which may improve hospital throughput especially when hospitals are near or at capacity.

Ambulatory oximetry has been used to help determine severity of cardiopulmonary diseases including heart failure,⁷ pulmonary hypertension,⁸ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,⁹ and interstitial lung disease.¹⁰ To our knowledge, the presence of ambulatory hypoxia has never been shown to acutely predict cardiopulmonary disease progression. Recently, some authors have advocated for ambulatory oximetry measurements to evaluate patients for discharge readiness after resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,¹¹ a strategy already adopted in our hospital. We present the first study showing that ambulatory hypoxia predicts worsening pulmonary disease in patients with COVID-19.

Our study has several limitations. First our study was performed at one health network with a relatively small number of patients potentially limiting generalizability. However, the associations between ambulatory hypoxia and worsening oxygenation were statistically very strong. Second, we excluded patients who did not have ambulatory oximetry measurements. Ambulatory oxygen measurement is part of the admission order protocols in our health system, so patients without measurements likely represented a sicker cohort unable to ambulate or those discharged quickly. Patients without measurement may also have been cared for by clinicians who did not order ambulatory oximetry, given lacking evidence. Third, we did not directly measure the presence of resting hypoxia because it was often not documented in the medical record before the use of oxygen therapy. The use of oxygen therapy was used as a surrogate for resting hypoxia. Finally, we excluded all patients who used oxygen therapy before ambulatory oximetry measures. These patients likely underwent ambulatory oximetry to determine discharge readiness. Alternatively, there may have been a small number of these patients who were given NC treatment for subjective comfort without resting hypoxia, who then developed ambulatory hypoxia.

Future randomized studies should be performed to evaluate earlier interventions in patients with COVID-19 and ambulatory hypoxia without resting hypoxia. An important extension of our findings could be the use of ambulatory oximetry measurement in triaging both outpatients and inpatients with COVID-19. Ambulatory hypoxia may help determine whether admission and inpatient monitoring with continuous pulse oximetry is warranted.