SOFA score performs worse than age for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19.

The use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, originally developed to describe disease morbidity, is commonly used to predict in-hospital mortality. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many protocols for crisis standards of care used the SOFA score to select patients to be deprioritized due to a low likelihood of survival. A prior study found that age outperformed the SOFA score for mortality prediction in patients with COVID-19, but was limited to a small cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and did not address whether their findings were unique to patients with COVID-19. Moreover, it is not known how well these measures perform across races. In this retrospective study, we compare the performance of age and SOFA score in predicting in-hospital mortality across two cohorts: a cohort of 2,648 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were admitted to a large academic health system in the northeastern United States over a 4-month period in 2020 and a cohort of 75,601 patients admitted to one of 335 ICUs in the eICU database between 2014 and 2015. We used age and the maximum SOFA score as predictor variables in separate univariate logistic regression models for in-hospital mortality and calculated area under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AU-ROCs) and area under precision-recall curves (AU-PRCs) for each predictor in both cohorts. Among the COVID-19 cohort, age (AU-ROC 0.795, 95% CI 0.762, 0.828) had a significantly better discrimination than SOFA score (AU-ROC 0.679, 95% CI 0.638, 0.721) for mortality prediction. Conversely, age (AU-ROC 0.628 95% CI 0.608, 0.628) underperformed compared to SOFA score (AU-ROC 0.735, 95% CI 0.726, 0.745) in non-COVID-19 ICU patients in the eICU database. There was no difference between Black and White COVID-19 patients in performance of either age or SOFA Score. Our findings bring into question the utility of SOFA score-based resource allocation in COVID-19 crisis standards of care.

Disaster Metrics: Evaluation of de Boer's Disaster Severity Scale (DSS) Applied to Earthquakes.

INTRODUCTION: Quantitative measurement of the medical severity following multiple-casualty events (MCEs) is an important goal in disaster medicine. In 1990, de Boer proposed a 13-point, 7-parameter scale called the Disaster Severity Scale (DSS). Parameters include cause, duration, radius, number of casualties, nature of injuries, rescue time, and effect on surrounding community. Hypothesis This study aimed to examine the reliability and dimensionality (number of salient themes) of de Boer's DSS scale through its application to 144 discrete earthquake events. METHODS: A search for earthquake events was conducted via National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and US Geological Survey (USGS) databases. Two experts in the field of disaster medicine independently reviewed and assigned scores for parameters that had no data readily available (nature of injuries, rescue time, and effect on surrounding community), and differences were reconciled via consensus. Principle Component Analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 22.0 (IBM Corp; Armonk, New York USA) to evaluate the reliability and dimensionality of the DSS. RESULTS: A total of 144 individual earthquakes from 2003 through 2013 were identified and scored. Of 13 points possible, the mean score was 6.04, the mode = 5, minimum = 4, maximum = 11, and standard deviation = 2.23. Three parameters in the DSS had zero variance (ie, the parameter received the same score in all 144 earthquakes). Because of the zero contribution to variance, these three parameters (cause, duration, and radius) were removed to run the statistical analysis. Cronbach's alpha score, a coefficient of internal consistency, for the remaining four parameters was found to be robust at 0.89. Principle Component Analysis showed uni-dimensional characteristics with only one component having an eigenvalue greater than one at 3.17. The 4-parameter DSS, however, suffered from restriction of scoring range on both parameter and scale levels. CONCLUSION: Jan de Boer's DSS in its 7-parameter format fails to hold statistically in a dataset of 144 earthquakes subjected to analysis. A modified 4-parameter scale was found to quantitatively assess medical severity more directly, but remains flawed due to range restriction on both individual parameter and scale levels. Further research is needed in the field of disaster metrics to develop a scale that is reliable in its complete set of parameters, capable of better fine discrimination, and uni-dimensional in measurement of the medical severity of MCEs.