RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Development and validation of the COVID-19 severity index (CSI): a prognostic tool for early respiratory decompensation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.07.20094573
DO 10.1101/2020.05.07.20094573
A1 Haimovich, Adrian
A1 Ravindra, Neal G.
A1 Stoytchev, Stoytcho
A1 Young, H. Patrick
A1 Wilson, F. Perry
A1 van Dijk, David
A1 Schulz, Wade L.
A1 Taylor, R. Andrew
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/12/2020.05.07.20094573.abstract
AB Objective The goal of this study was to create a predictive model of early hospital respiratory decompensation among patients with COVID-19.Design Observational, retrospective cohort study.Setting Nine-hospital health system within the Northeastern United States.Populations Adult patients (≥ 18 years) admitted from the emergency department who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) up to 24 hours after initial presentation. Patients meeting criteria for critical respiratory illness within 4 hours of arrival were excluded.Main outcome and performance measures We used a composite endpoint of respiratory critical illness as defined by oxygen requirement beyond low-flow nasal cannula (e.g., non-rebreather mask, high-flow nasal cannula, bi-level positive pressure ventilation), intubation, or death within the first 24 hours of hospitalization. We developed predictive models using patient demographic and clinical data collected during those first 4 hours. Eight hospitals were used for development and internal validation (n = 932) and 1 hospital for model external validation (n = 240). Predictive variables were identified using an ensemble approach that included univariate regression, random forest, logistic regression with LASSO, Chi-square testing, gradient boosting information gain, and gradient boosting Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values prior to manual curation. We generated two predictive models, a quick COVID-19 severity index (qCSI) that uses only exam and vital sign measurements, and a COVID-19 severity index (CSI) machine learning model. Using area under receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC), precision-recall curves (AU-PRC) and calibration metrics, we compare the qCSI and CSI to three illness scoring systems: Elixhauser mortality score, qSOFA, and CURB-65. We present performance of qCSI and CSI on an external validation cohort.Results During the study period from March 1, 2020 to April 27, 2020, 1,792 patients were admitted with COVID-19. Six-hundred and twenty patients were excluded based on age or critical illness within the first 4 hours, yielding 1172 patients in the final cohort. Of these patients, 144 (12.3%) met the composite endpoint within the first 24 hours. The qCSI (AU-ROC: 0.90 [0.85-0.96]) comprised of nasal cannula flow rate, respiratory rate, and minimum documented pulse oximetry outperformed the baseline models (qSOFA: 0.76 [0.69-0.85]; Elixhauser: 0.70 [0.62-0.80]; CURB-65: AU-ROC 0.66 [0.58-0.77]) and was validated on an external cohort (AU-ROC: 0.82). The machine learning-based CSI had superior performance on the training cohort (AU-ROC: 0.91 [0.86-0.97]), but was unlikely to provide practical improvements in clinical settings.Conclusions A significant proportion of admitted COVID-19 patients decompensate within 24 hours of hospital presentation and these events are accurately predicted using respiratory exam findings within a simple scoring system.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFPW acknowledges R01DK113191 and P30DK079310.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDue to patient privacy concerns, the data in this study cannot be made publicly available.