NEWS2, S/F-ratio and ROX-index at emergency department for the prediction of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients: An external validation study.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the early and accurate identification of patients at risk of deterioration was crucial in overcrowded and resource-limited emergency departments. This study conducts an external validation for the evaluation of the performance of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), the S/F ratio, and the ROX index at ED admission in a large cohort of COVID-19 patients from Colombia, South America, assessing the net clinical benefit with decision curve analysis. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 6907 adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to a tertiary care ED in Colombia. The study evaluated the diagnostic performance of NEWS2, S/F ratio, and ROX index scores at ED admission using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis for the prediction of intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 6907 patients who presented to the ED with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 2020 to November 2021. Mean age was 51 (35-65) years and 50.4% of patients were males. The rate of intensive care unit admission was 28%, and in-hospital death was 9.8%. All three scores have good discriminatory performance for the three outcomes based on the AUROC. S/F ratio showed miscalibration at low predicted probabilities and decision curve analysis indicated that the NEWS2 score provided a greater net benefit compared to other scores across at a 10% threshold to decide ED admission at a high-level of care facility. CONCLUSIONS: The NEWS2, S/F ratio, and ROX index at ED admission have good discriminatory performances in COVID-19 patients for the prediction of adverse outcomes, but the NEWS2 score has a higher net benefit underscoring its clinical utility in optimizing patient management and resource allocation in emergency settings.

The ROX, shock and diastolic shock indexes in the prediction of mortality in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to determine the role of Respiratory Rate Oxygenation (ROX), shock, and diastolic shock indexes ​​in predicting mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the emergency department. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 spread worldwide in a short time and caused a major pandemic. The ROX, shock, and diastolic shock indexes are used in various life-threatening clinical situations. The use of these indexes in triage at emergency departments can accelerate the determination of COVID-19 patients' severity. METHODS: The ROX, shock and diastolic shock indices were calculated and recorded. Patients were divided into three groups; 1) who were discharged from the hospital, 2) who were admitted to the hospital and 3) who were admitted to the intensive care unit. RESULTS: Increased diastolic shock index and decreased ROX index were found to be independent risk factors for mortality. In the prediction of mortality, the sensitivity and specificity of the diastolic shock index were 61.2% and 60.8%, respectively. However, the sensitivity and specificity of ROX index was 73.1% and 71.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we found that the ROX index had higher sensitivity and specificity than other indexes in predicting mortality in the evaluation of COVID-19 patients (Tab. 3, Fig. 2, Ref. 18).

ChatGPT achieves comparable accuracy to specialist physicians in predicting the efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy.

Background: The failure of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy can necessitate endotracheal intubation in patients, making timely prediction of the intubation risk following HFNC therapy crucial for reducing mortality due to delays in intubation. Objectives: To investigate the accuracy of ChatGPT in predicting the endotracheal intubation risk within 48 h following HFNC therapy and compare it with the predictive accuracy of specialist and non-specialist physicians. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study based on the data of 71 adult patients who received HFNC therapy. For each patient, their baseline data and physiological parameters after 6-h HFNC therapy were recorded to create a 6-alternative-forced-choice questionnaire that asked participants to predict the 48-h endotracheal intubation risk using scale options ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating a greater risk. GPT-3.5, GPT-4.0, respiratory and critical care specialist physicians and non-specialist physicians completed the same questionnaires (N = 71) respectively. We then determined the optimal diagnostic cutoff point, using the Youden index, for each predictor and 6-h ROX index, and compared their predictive performance using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: The optimal diagnostic cutoff points were determined to be ≥ 4 for both GPT-4.0 and specialist physicians. GPT-4.0 demonstrated a precision of 76.1 %, with a specificity of 78.6 % (95%CI = 52.4-92.4 %) and sensitivity of 75.4 % (95%CI = 62.9-84.8 %). In comparison, the precision of specialist physicians was 80.3 %, with a specificity of 71.4 % (95%CI = 45.4-88.3 %) and sensitivity of 82.5 % (95%CI = 70.6-90.2 %). For GPT-3.5 and non-specialist physicians, the optimal diagnostic cutoff points were ≥5, with precisions of 73.2 % and 64.8 %, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) in ROC analysis for GPT-4.0 was 0.821 (95%CI = 0.698-0.943), which was the highest among the predictors and significantly higher than that of non-specialist physicians [0.662 (95%CI = 0.518-0.805), P = 0.011]. Conclusion: GPT-4.0 achieves an accuracy level comparable to specialist physicians in predicting the 48-h endotracheal intubation risk following HFNC therapy, based on patient baseline data and physiological parameters after 6-h HFNC therapy.

Association between prehospital ROX index with 30-day mortality among septic shock.

PURPOSE: Respiratory dysfunction is one of the most frequent symptoms observed during sepsis reflecting hypoxemia and/or acidosis that may be assessed by the ROX index (ratio of oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry/fraction of inspired oxygen to respiratory rate). This study aimed to describe the relationship between the prehospital ROX index and 30-day mortality rate among septic shock patients cared for in the prehospital setting by a mobile intensive care unit (MICU). METHODS: From May 2016 to December 2021, 530 septic shock patients cared for by a prehospital MICU were retrospectively analysed. Initial ROX index value was calculated at the first contact with MICU. A Cox regression analysis after propensity score matching was performed to assess the relationship between 30-day mortality rate and a ROX index ≤ 10. RESULTS: Pulmonary, digestive and urinary sepsis were suspected among 43%, 25% and 17% patients, respectively. The 30-day overall mortality reached 31%. Cox regression analysis showed a significant association between 30-day mortality and a ROX index ≤ 10: adjusted hazard ratio of 1.54 [1.08-2.31], p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: During the prehospital stage of septic shock patients cared for by a MICU, ROX index is significantly associated with 30-day mortality. A prehospital ROX ≤ 10 value is associated with a 1.5-fold 30-day mortality rate increase. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the ability of prehospital ROX to predict sepsis outcome since the prehospital setting.

ROX Index Variation as a Predictor of Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency departments were overcrowded with critically ill patients, and many providers were confronted with ethical dilemmas in assigning respiratory support to them due to scarce resources. Quick tools for evaluating patients upon admission were necessary, as many existing scores proved inaccurate in predicting outcomes. The ROX Index (RI), a rapid and straightforward scoring system reflecting respiratory status in acute respiratory failure patients, has shown promise in predicting outcomes for COVID-19 patients. The 24 h difference in the RI accurately gauges mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) among patients with COVID-19. Methods: Study design: Prospective cohort study. A total of 204 patients were admitted to the emergency department from May to August 2020. Data were collected from the clinical records. The RI was calculated at admission and 24 h later, and the difference was used to predict the association with mortality and the need for IMV, a logistic regression model was used to adjust for age, sex, presence of comorbidities, and disease severity. Finally, the data were analyzed using ROC. Results: The difference in respiratory RI between admission and 24 h is a good predictor for death (AUC 0.92) and for mechanic ventilation (AUC: 0.75). Each one-unit decrease in the RI difference at 24 h was associated with an odds ratio of 1.48 for the risk of death (95%CI: 1.31-1.67) and an odds ratio of 1.16 for IMV (95% IC: 1.1-1.23). Conclusions: The 24 h variation of RI is a good prediction tool to allow healthcare professionals to identify the patients who will benefit from invasive treatment, especially in low-resource settings.

Respiratory Rate Oxygenation (ROX) index as predictor of high flow nasal cannula in pediatric patients in pediatric intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is often used in pediatric populations with respiratory distress. In adults, the respiratory-rate oxygenation (ROX) index is used as a predictor of HFNC therapy; however, children have age-associated differences in respiratory rate, thus may not be applicable to children. This study aims to find the reliability of ROX index and modified P-ROX index as predictors of HFNC therapy failure in pediatric patients. METHODS: Subjects in this analytical cross-sectional study were taken from January 2023 until November 2023 in Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital. Inclusion criteria are children aged 1 month to 18 years with respiratory distress and got HFNC therapy. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to find mP-ROX index cutoff value as a predictor of HFNC failure. The area under curve (AUC) score of mP-ROX index was assessed at different time point. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients, with 70% of the population with pneumonia, were included in this study. There are significant differences in the ROX index between the successful and failed HFNC group therapy (p < 0.05). This study suggests that mP-ROX index is not useful as predictor of HFNC therapy in pediatrics. While ROX index < 5.52 at 60 min and < 5.68 at 90 min after HFNC initiation have a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 71%, sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 76%, respectively. CONCLUSION: mP-ROX index is not useful as a predictor of HFNC therapy in pediatrics. Meanwhile, ROX index at 60 min and 90 min after initiation of HFNC is useful as a predictor of HFNC failure.

Retrospective evaluation of the respiratory rate-oxygenation index to predict the outcome of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in dogs (2018-2021): 81 cases.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ROX), modified ROX index (ROX-HR), and the ratio of pulse oximetry saturation (Spo2) to Fio2 (SF) to determine if these indices over time are predictive of outcome in dogs treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC). DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Two university teaching hospitals. ANIMALS: Eighty-one client-owned dogs treated with HFNC for hypoxemic respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The ROX was defined as the SF divided by the respiratory rate (RR), and the ROX-HR was defined as the ROX divided by the heart rate multiplied by 100. The overall success rate of HFNC was 44% (n = 36/81). Dogs weaned from HFNC had a significantly higher ROX (P < 0.0001) at 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 15 hours than dogs that failed HFNC. Both the ROX and SF showed excellent discriminatory power in predicting HFNC failure at 6 hours, with an area under receiver operating curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.99; P < 0.002) and 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-0.99; P < 0.001), respectively. The optimal cutoff values for predicting HFNC failure at 6 hours were a ROX ≤3.68 (sensitivity 72%, specificity 92%) and an SF ≤143 (sensitivity 79%, specificity 93%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that similar to people, the ROX and SF are useful predictors of HFNC failure. These indices are easy to measure at the bedside and may have clinical use. Future prospective studies are warranted to confirm the findings and to optimize cutoff values in a larger population of dogs undergoing HFNC.

Effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen therapy after extubation of patients in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of early high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy initiation using a pre-determined respiratory rate­oxygenation (ROX) index on reducing reintubation rates and duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in post-extubated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled a total of 145 extubated patients (mean age: 67.1 ± 12.9 years; sex: 96 male and 49 female; acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score: 18.4 ± 6.8 points) classified into two groups: 71 patients admitted to the ICU before establishing extubation criteria and 74 patients after criteria implementation, over a 6-month period. We compared the HFNO reintubation rates and ROX index at 2 h post-extubation before and after implementing early HFNO criteria. RESULTS: The utilization rate of HFNO pre- and post-establishment of early HFNO criteria did not differ significantly (19.7% vs. 17.6%). However, the reintubation rate significantly decreased (11.3% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.05) with early HFNO use. Additionally, significant differences were observed in the total intubation period (5.2 ± 7.0 vs. 2.5 ± 2.7 days, P < 0.05) and ICU duration (8.6 ± 9.7 vs. 5.8 ± 5.6 days, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of HFNO guided by the ROX index threshold post-extubation in patients admitted to ICU is associated with reduced reintubation rates and shorter ICU stays.

Using the ROX Index to Predict Treatment Outcome for High-Flow Nasal Cannula and/or Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With COPD Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: The ratio of oxygen saturation index (ROX index; or SpO2 /FIO2 /breathing frequency) has been shown to predict risk of intubation after high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) support among adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure primarily due to pneumonia. However, its predictive value for other subtypes of respiratory failure is unknown. This study investigated whether the ROX index predicts liberation from HFNC or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), intubation with mechanical ventilation, or death in adults admitted for respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of COPD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 260 adults hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation and treated with HFNC and/or NIV (continuous or bi-level). ROX index scores were collected at treatment initiation and predefined time intervals throughout HFNC and/or NIV treatment or until the subject was intubated or died. A ROX index score of ≥ 4.88 was applied to the cohort to determine if the same score would perform similarly in this different cohort. Accuracy of the ROX index was determined by calculating the area under the receiver operator curve. RESULTS: A total of 47 subjects (18%) required invasive mechanical ventilation or died while on HFNC/NIV. The ROX index at treatment initiation, 1 h, and 6 h demonstrated the best prediction accuracy for avoidance of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (area under the receiver operator curve 0.73 [95% CI 0.66-0.80], 0.72 [95% CI 0.65-0.79], and 0.72 [95% CI 0.63-0.82], respectively). The optimal cutoff value for sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) was a ROX index score > 6.88 (sensitivity 62%, specificity 57%). CONCLUSIONS: The ROX index applied to adults with COPD exacerbations treated with HFNC and/or NIV required higher scores to achieve similar prediction of low risk of treatment failure when compared to subjects with hypoxemic respiratory failure/pneumonia. ROX scores < 4.88 did not accurately predict intubation or death.

Association between the ROX index and mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although ROX index is frequently used to assess the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula treatment in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) patients, the relationship between the ROX index and the mortality remains unclear. Therefore, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the ability of the ROX index to predict mortality risk in patients with AHRF. METHOD: Patients diagnosed with AHRF were extracted from the MIMIC-IV database and divided into four groups based on the ROX index quartiles. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, while in-hospital mortality and follow-up mortality were secondary outcomes. To investigate the association between ROX index and mortality in AHRF patients, restricted cubic spline curve and COX proportional risk regression were utilized. RESULT: A non-linear association (L-shaped) has been observed between the ROX index and mortality rate. When the ROX index is below 8.28, there is a notable decline in the 28-day mortality risk of patients as the ROX index increases (HR per SD, 0.858 [95%CI 0.794-0.928] P < 0.001). When the ROX index is above 8.28, no significant association was found between the ROX index and 28-day mortality. In contrast to the Q1 group, the mortality rates in the Q2, Q3, and Q4 groups had a substantial reduction (Q1 vs. Q2: HR, 0.749 [0.590-0.950] P = 0.017; Q3: HR, 0.711 [0.558-0.906] P = 0.006; Q4: HR, 0.641 [0.495-0.830] P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The ROX index serves as a valuable predictor of mortality risk in adult patients with AHRF, and that a lower ROX index is substantially associated with an increase in mortality.

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.

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).

High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COVID-19 Patients With Moderate to Severe Respiratory Distress: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a device for non-invasive ventilation (NIV). It was utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with moderate to severe respiratory distress due to its benefit profile in delaying intubation, ease of use, and comfort of patients in comparison to NIV. OBJECTIVES: Our main objective is to calculate the intubation rate of patients with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID-19 in moderate to severe respiratory distress who failed graded oxygen therapy (GOT). Before incorporating HFNC as a treatment option, the intubation rate was 100% after GOT failure. We calculated the rate of intubation at two, six, and 12 hours of starting HFNC, where each patient is in their own control with an assumed intubation rate of 100%. Other objectives include measuring the rate of improvement of the ROX index, respiratory rate (RR), and oxygen saturation (SPO2) levels at two, six, and 12 hours. METHODS: We retrospectively screened patients with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection in moderate to severe respiratory distress at Rashid Hospital Trauma Center, Emergency Department in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from April 10, 2020, until December 31, 2020. The list of patients was pooled from the SALAMA electronic system. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were included in the analysis. Assuming an intubation rate of 100% at 0 hours (end of GOT), after starting HFNC, the intubation rate (primary outcome) at two hours was 7.43% (9/121), at six hours was 7.14% (8/112), and at 12 hours was 5.77% (6/104). The total intubation rate at 12 hours was 19% (23/121). The use of HFNC was also shown to improve the ROX index, RR, and SPO2 at two, six, and 12 hours. CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected or lab-confirmed COVID-19 in moderate to severe respiratory distress who failed GOT and were started on HFNC, it was noted that the intubation rate decreased from an assumed rate of 100% to 19% at 12 hours from starting the treatment. There was also a statistically significant improvement in the ROX index, SPO2, and RR at two, six, and 12 hours from the initiation at 0 hours.

ROX index performance to predict high-flow nasal oxygen outcome in Covid-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Given the pathophysiology of hypoxemia in patients with Covid-19 acute respiratory failure (ARF), it seemed necessary to evaluate whether ROX index (ratio SpO2/FiO2 to respiratory rate) could accurately predict intubation or death in these patients initially treated by high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO). We aimed, therefore, to assess the accuracy of ROX index to discriminate between HFNO failure (sensitivity) and HFNO success (specificity). METHODS: We designed a multicentre retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with Covid-19 ARF. In addition to its accuracy, we assessed the usefulness of ROX index to predict HFNO failure (intubation or death) via logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 218 ARF patients screened, 99 were first treated with HFNO, including 49 HFNO failures (46 intubations, 3 deaths before intubation). At HFNO initiation (H0), ROX index sensitivity was 63% (95%CI 48-77%) and specificity 76% (95%CI 62-87%) using Youden's index. With 4.88 as ROX index cut-off at H12, sensitivity was 29% (95%CI 14-48%) and specificity 90% (95%CI 78-97%). Youden's index yielded 8.73 as ROX index cut-off at H12, with 87% sensitivity (95%CI 70-96%) and 45% specificity (95%CI 31-60%). ROX index at H0 was associated with HFNO failure (p = 0.0005) in univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that SAPS II (p = 0.0003) and radiographic extension of pulmonary injuries (p = 0.0263), rather than ROX index, were predictive of HFNO failure. CONCLUSIONS: ROX index cut-off values seem population-specific and the ROX index appears to have a technically acceptable but clinically low capability to discriminate between HFNO failures and successes in Covid-19 ARF patients. In addition, SAPS II and pulmonary injuries at ICU admission appear more useful than ROX index to predict the risk of intubation.

Respiratory rate­oxygenation (ROX) index for predicting high-flow nasal cannula failure in patients with and without COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The predictive value of the respiratory rate­oxygenation (ROX) index for a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) may differ from patients without COVID-19 with AHRF, but these patients have not yet been compared. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the ROX index for HFNC failure in patients with AHRF with and without COVID-19 during acute emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with AHRF treated with an HFNC in an ED between October 2020 and April 2022. The ROX index was calculated at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after HFNC placement. The primary outcome was the failure of the HFNC, which was defined as the need for subsequent intubation or death within 72 h. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate discriminative power of the ROX index for HFNC failure. RESULTS: Among 448 patients with AHRF treated with an HFNC in an ED, 78 (17.4%) patients were confirmed to have COVID-19. There was no significant difference in the HFNC failure rates between the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups (29.5% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.498). The median ROX index was higher in the non-COVID-19 group than in the COVID-19 group at all time points. The prognostic power of the ROX index for HFNC failure as evaluated by the area under the ROC curve was generally higher in the COVID-19 group (0.73-0.83) than the non-COVID-19 group (0.62-0.75). The timing of the highest prognostic value of the ROX index for HFNC failure was at 4 h for the non-COVID-19 group, whereas in the COVID-19 group, its performance remained consistent from 1 h to 6 h. The optimal cutoff values were 6.48 and 5.79 for the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ROX index had an acceptable discriminative power for predicting HFNC failure in patients with AHRF with and without COVID-19 in the ED. However, the higher ROX index thresholds than those in previous publications involving intensive care unit (ICU) patients suggest the need for careful monitoring and establishment of a new threshold for patients admitted outside the ICU.

The Validity of the ROX Index and APACHE II in Predicting Early, Late, and Non-Responses to Non-Invasive Ventilation in Patients with COVID-19 in a Low-Resource Setting.

The use of the Ratio of Oxygen Saturation (ROX) index to predict the success of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) is well established. The ROX can also predict the need for intubation, mortality, and is easier to calculate compared with APACHE II. In this prospective study, the primary aim is to compare the ROX (easily administered in resource limited setting) to APACHE II for clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality and the need for intubation. Our secondary aim was to identify thresholds for the ROX index in predicting outcomes such as the length of ICU stay and failure of non-invasive respiratory support therapies and to assess the effectiveness of using the ROX (day 1 at admission, day 2, and day 3) versus Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II scores (at admission) in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) to predict early, late, and non-responders. After screening 208 intensive care unit patients, a total of 118 COVID-19 patients were enrolled, who were categorized into early (n = 38), late (n = 34), and non-responders (n = 46). Multinomial logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC), Multivariate Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were conducted. Multinomial logistic regressions between late and early responders and between non- and early responders were associated with reduced risk of treatment failures. ROC analysis for early vs. late responders showed that APACHE II on admission had the largest area under the curve (0.847), followed by the ROX index on admission (0.843). For responders vs. non-responders, we found that the ROX index on admission had a slightly better AUC than APACHE II on admission (0.759 vs. 0.751). A higher ROX index on admission [HR (95% CI): 0.29 (0.13-0.52)] and on day 2 [HR (95% CI): 0.55 (0.34-0.89)] were associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure. The ROX index can be used as an independent predictor of early response and mortality outcomes to HFNO and NIV in COVID-19 pneumonia, especially in low-resource settings, and is non-inferior to APACHE II.

Predictive Factors of Oxygen Therapy Failure in Patients with COVID-19 in the Emergency Department.

Background: Most patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia require oxygen therapy, including standard oxygen therapy and a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in the Emergency Department (ED), and some patients develop respiratory failure. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care unit (ICU) was overburdening. Therefore, prioritizing patients who require intensive care is important. This study aimed to find predictors and develop a model to predict patients at risk of requiring an invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) in the ED. Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center, observational study. Patients aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and required oxygen therapy in the ED were enrolled. Cox regression and Harrell's C-statistic were used to identifying predictors of requiring IMV. The predictive model was developed by calculated coefficients and the ventilator-free survival probability. The predictive model was internally validated using the bootstrapping method. Results: We enrolled 333 patients, and 97 (29.1%) had required IMV. Most 66 (68.0%) failure cases were initial oxygen therapy with HFNC. Respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index, interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentrations ≥20 pg/mL, the SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score without a respiratory score, and the patient's age were independent risk factors of requiring IMV. These factors were used to develop the predictive model. ROX index and the predictive model at 2 hours showed a good performance to predict oxygen therapy failure; the c-statistic was 0.814 (95% confidence level [CI] 0.767-0.861) and 0.901 (95% CI 0.873-0.928), respectively. ROX index ≤5.1 and the predictive model score ≥8 indicated a high probability of requiring IMV. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic was limited resources, ROX index, IL-6 ≥20 pg/mL, the SOFA score without a respiratory score, and the patient's age can be used to predict oxygen therapy failure. Moreover, the predictive model is good at discriminating patients at risk of requiring IMV and close monitoring.

Daily ROX index can predict transitioning to mechanical ventilation within the next 24 h in COVID-19 patients on HFNC.

INTRODUCTION: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is used to prevent invasive ventilation in COVID-19-associated hypoxemia. The respiratory rate­oxygenation (ROX) index has been reported to predict failure of HFNC in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the intensive care unit stay when measured in first hours of therapy. However, the clinical course of ICU patients may change substantially in the first days of admission. The objective of this study was to investigate whether ROX index obtained in the first four days of ICU admission could predict the need for invasive respiratory support within the next 24 h of measurements. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using a database that included adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated in the ICU. Patients were followed from ICU admission and ROX index was calculated daily on HFNC. Receiver operating characteristics curves (ROCs) were performed. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine patients were enrolled, 48% of whom require mechanical ventilation (MV). The area under the ROC of the pooled 4-day values of the ROX index as a predictor of transition from HFNC to MV within 24 h of measurements was 0.86 (95%CI 0.83 to 0.88, P < 0.001) with a cutoff point of 4.06. CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 patients in high flow nasal cannula, daily ROX index measurements successfully predicted transition to mechanical ventilation within the next 24 h.

Performance of the ROX index in predicting high flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) benefit from high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy. However, delays in initiating invasive ventilation after HFNC failure are associated with poorer outcomes. The respiratory oxygenation (ROX) index, combining SpO2/FiO2 and respiratory rate, can predict HFNC failure. This meta-analysis evaluated the optimal ROX index cut-offs in predicting HFNC failure among COVID-19 patients at different measurement timings and clinical settings. Three databases were searched for eligible papers. From each study, we reconstructed the confusion matrices at different cut-offs, fitted linear mixed models to estimate the ROX index distribution function, and derived the area under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve (sAUC) and optimal cut-offs to predict HFNC failure. 24 studies containing 4790 patients were included. Overall sAUC was 0.771 (95% CI: 0.666-0.847) (optimal cut-off: 5.23, sensitivity: 0.732, specificity: 0.690). The cut-off values to achieve 80%, 90% sensitivity, 80%, 90% specificity were 5.70, 6.69, 4.45, 3.37, respectively. We stratified the analysis by ROX measurement time and estimated optimal cut-offs and cut-offs to achieve 80% sensitivity and specificity. For 2-6 h and 6-12 h post-HFNC initiation, we propose the use of 80% specific cut-offs to rule in HFNC failure of < 5.33 and < 3.69, respectively. For 12-24 h post-HFNC initiation, we propose the use of the 80% sensitive cut-off of > 6.07 to rule out HFNC failure. Our analysis confirms the overall utility of the ROX index in risk stratification of COVID-19 patients with AHRF receiving HFNC and provides potentially useful cut-offs for different times from HFNC initiation.

Reliability of the respiratory rate and oxygenation index for successful high-flow nasal cannula support in coronavirus disease pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is an important non-invasive respiratory support in acute respiratory failure, including coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia. Although the respiratory rate and oxygenation (ROX) index is a simple and useful predictor for HFNC failure and mortality, there is limited evidence for its use in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We aimed to evaluate the ROX index as a predictor for HFNC failure in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We also evaluated the ROX index as a predictor for 28-day mortality. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective, cohort study, 248 patients older than 18 years of age with COVID-19 pneumonia received HFNC therapy for acute respiratory failure. The ROX index was evaluated within 4 h from the start of HFNC therapy. Past medical history, laboratory data, and the ROX index were evaluated as predictors for HFNC failure and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The ROX index < 4.88 showed a significantly high risk ratio for HFNC failure (2.13 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47 - 3.08], p < 0.001). The ROX index < 4.88 was significantly associated with 28-day mortality (p = 0.049) in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia receiving HFNC therapy. Age, chronic hypertension, high lactate dehydrogenase level, and low ROX index showed significantly high risk ratio for HFNC failure. C-reactive protein level and low ROX index were predictors of 28-day morality. CONCLUSION: The ROX index is a useful predictor for HFNC success and 28-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia receiving HFNC therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: An independent ethics committee approved the study (Research Ethics Review Committee of Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital [number: zn220303; date: February 21, 2022]), which was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.

Índice ROX, oxigenoterapia a alto flujo y neumonía por COVID-19 / ROX index, high-flow oxygen therapy and COVID-19 pneumonia

Resumen Introducción: El objetivo fue evaluar el valor predic tivo del índice ROX (Ratio of Oxygen Saturation) y describir la evolución de una población de pacientes ingresados en cuidados intensivos por neumonía por COVID-19 que requirieron oxigenoterapia a alto flujo. Métodos: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo en paci entes mayores de 18 años con hisopado nasofaríngeo positivo para SARS-CoV-2 que ingresaron a cuidados intensivos con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda y requi rieron oxigenoterapia con alto flujo por > 2 h. Resultados: De un total de 97 pacientes 42 (43.3%) respondieron satisfactoriamente al tratamiento con cánula nasal de alto flujo (CNAF) y 55 (56.7%) fracasa ron al tratamiento requiriendo intubación orotraqueal y soporte ventilatorio invasivo. De los 55 pacientes que fracasaron, 11 (20%) sobrevivieron y 44 (80%) fallecier on durante su internación en cuidados intensivos (p < 0.001). Ningún paciente que respondió satisfac toriamente al tratamiento con CNAF falleció durante su internación. El análisis ROC identificó el índice de ROX de las 12 horas como el mejor predictor de fracaso con un área bajo la curva de 0.75 (0.64-0.85) y un punto de corte de 6.23 como mejor predictor de intubación [sensibilidad 0.85 (IC 95% 0.70-0.94), especificidad 0.55 (IC 95% 0.39-0.70)]. Discusión: En pacientes con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda secundaria a neumonía por COVID-19 tratados con oxigenoterapia a alto flujo, el índice de ROX resultó un buen predictor de éxito.

Abstract Introduction: The objective was to evaluate the pre dictive value of the ROX index and describe the evolu tion of a population of patients admitted to intensive care for COVID-19 pneumonia who required high-flow oxygen therapy. Methods: Retrospective cohort study in patients older than 18 years with a positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-COV-2 who were admitted to intensive care unit with acute respiratory failure and required high-flow oxygen therapy for > 2 hours. Results: Of a total of 97 patients, 42 (43.3%) responded satisfactorily to treatment with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and 55 (56.7%) failed treatment, requiring orotra cheal intubation and invasive ventilatory support. Of the 55 patients who failed, 11 (20%) survived and 44 (80%) died during intensive care admission (p < 0.001). No patient who responded satisfactorily to HFNC treatment died during hospitalization. The ROC analysis identified the 12-hour ROX index as the best predictor of failure with an area under the curve of 0.75 (0.64-0.85) and a cut-off point of 6.23 as the best predictor of intubation [Sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-0.94), Specificity 0.55 (95% CI 0.39-0.70)]. Discussion: In patients with acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia treated with high-flow oxygen therapy, the ROX index was a good predictor of success.