Comparing Rapid Scoring Systems in Mortality Prediction of Critically Ill Patients With Novel Coronavirus Disease

Abstract

Objectives: Rapid and early severity-of-illness assessment appears to be important for critically ill patients with novel coronavirus disease . This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the rapid scoring system on admission of these patients.Methods: A total of 138 medical records of critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in the study.Demographic and clinical characteristics on admission used for calculating Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) and outcomes (survival or death) were collected for each case and extracted for analysis. All patients were divided into two age subgroups (<65 years and ≥65 years). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed for overall patients and both subgroups.Results: The median [25th quartile, 75th quartile] of MEWS of survivors versus nonsurvivors were 1 [1, 2] and 2 [1, 3] and those of REMS were 5 [2, 6] and 7 [6, 10], respectively. In overall analysis, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.833 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.737 to 0.928), higher than that of MEWS (0.677, 95% CI = 0.541 to 0.813). An optimal cutoff of REMS (≥6) had a sensitivity of 89.5%, a specificity of 69.8%, a positive predictive value of 39.5%, and a negative predictive value of 96.8%. In the analysis of subgroup of patients aged <65 years, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.863 (95% CI = 0.743 to 0.941), higher than that of MEWS (0.603, 95% CI = 0.462 to 0.732). Conclusion:To our knowledge, this study was the first exploration on rapid scoring systems for critically ill patients with COVID-19. The REMS could provide emergency clinicians with an effective adjunct risk stratification tool for critically ill patients with COVID-19, especially for the patients aged <65 years. The effectiveness of REMS for screening these patients is attributed to its high negative predictive value.From the

Diagnosing COVID‐19 in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review of Clinical Examinations, Laboratory Tests, Imaging Accuracy, and Biases

“…122 Efforts to develop COVID-19 decision aids might include something like the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (PERC) rule to identify subsets of ED patients at lower 123 Alternatively, a decision aid might serve prognostic purposes to identify COVID-19 patients more likely to decompensate in response to the viral infection. [124][125][126][127] When decision aid investigators attempt to derive and validate these instruments, higher-quality emergency medicine research quantifying accuracy and reliability (or the elements of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging that become predictor variables of the decision aid) will be required as the basis for selecting variables likely to improve model performance.…”

Predictors of mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The search process identi ed 1832 publications in the initial search. After screening, we included 36 studies in the systematic review , of which 27 were included in the meta-analysis [3,5,6,9,[11][12][13]15,16,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]38]. The literature selection process is shown in Figure 1.…”

The impact of vital signs on the death of patients with new coronavirus pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Meta-analysis execute a secondary analysis to expand the sample size, minimize the limitations of a single small sample clinical trial, to generate more comprehensive and reliable analysis results, thereby facilitating a better platform for medical decision-making. Therefore, it is an indispensable statistical method to determine the factors affecting the death of patients with COVID- 19. Some literatures only analyze the impact of a certain disease or lifestyle on the death of patients with COVID-19.…”