ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 may lead to severe disease, requiring intensive care treatment and challenging the capacity of health care systems. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of commonly used scoring systems for sepsis and pneumonia to predict severe COVID-19 in the emergency department. METHODS: Prospective, observational, single centre study in a secondary/tertiary care hospital in Oslo, Norway. Patients were assessed upon hospital admission using the following scoring systems; quick Sequential Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria (SIRS), National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65 and Pneumonia Severity index (PSI). The ratio of arterial oxygen tension to inspiratory oxygen fraction (P/F-ratio) was also calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) for each scoring system was calculated, along with sensitivity and specificity for the most commonly used cut-offs. Severe disease was defined as death or treatment in ICU within 14 days. RESULTS: 38 of 175 study participants developed severe disease, 13 (7%) died and 29 (17%) had a stay at an intensive care unit (ICU). NEWS2 displayed an AUROC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.88), CURB-65 0.75 (0.65-0.84), PSI 0.75 (0.65-0.84), SIRS 0.70 (0.61-0.80) and qSOFA 0.70 (0.61-0.79). NEWS2 was significantly better than SIRS and qSOFA in predicating severe disease, and with a cut-off of5 points, had a sensitivity and specificity of 82% and 60%, respectively. CONCLUSION: NEWS2 predicted severe COVID-19 disease more accurately than SIRS and qSOFA, but not significantly better than CURB65 and PSI. NEWS2 may be a useful screening tool in evaluating COVID-19 patients during hospital admission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: : ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04345536. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04345536).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pneumonia can result in severe hypoxaemic respiratory failure that requires intensive medical care. We wished to describe COVID-19 intensive care patients who were treated with and without invasive ventilatory support. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The material was retrieved from the local quality register and comprises data on patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care department at Oslo University Hospital Ullevål from 5 March-28 May 2020. The patients were categorised in three groups on the basis of the treatment they received for respiratory failure (oxygen alone, supplemental non-invasive ventilation (NIV), and intubation/ventilator) and described using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 165 hospitalised COVID-19 patients, a total of 26 (16 %) were treated in our intensive care department. Four of them had do-not-resuscitate-orders and were excluded. The 22 patients included in this study had an average age of 56 years (range 25 to 78 years); 17 (77 %) were men. Eleven patients received ventilator treatment, seven oxygen by mask, and four supplemental NIV. In the ventilator group, as of 28 May 2020 two had died, and the remainder had been discharged alive from the intensive care department, with one remaining hospitalised on a ward. All patients treated with oxygen and NIV were alive and had been discharged from hospital. INTERPRETATION: For many patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure and need for intensive care, increased oxygen and NIV are sufficient, but the need for intubation must be continuously assessed. More than 90 % of actively treated intensive care patients survived.