TY - JOUR
T1 - Development and Validation of a Two-Step Predictive Risk Stratification Model for Coronavirus Disease 2019 In-hospital Mortality
T2 - A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study
AU - Li, Yang
AU - Kong, Yanlei
AU - Ebell, Mark H.
AU - Martinez, Leonardo
AU - Cai, Xinyan
AU - Lennon, Robert P.
AU - Tarn, Derjung M.
AU - Mainous, Arch G.
AU - Zgierska, Aleksandra E.
AU - Barrett, Bruce
AU - Tuan, Wen Jan
AU - Maloy, Kevin
AU - Goyal, Munish
AU - Krist, Alex H.
AU - Gal, Tamas S.
AU - Sung, Meng Hsuan
AU - Li, Changwei
AU - Jin, Yier
AU - Shen, Ye
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Li, Kong, Ebell, Martinez, Cai, Lennon, Tarn, Mainous, Zgierska, Barrett, Tuan, Maloy, Goyal, Krist, Gal, Sung, Li, Jin and Shen.
PY - 2022/4/7
Y1 - 2022/4/7
N2 - Objectives: An accurate prognostic score to predict mortality for adults with COVID-19 infection is needed to understand who would benefit most from hospitalizations and more intensive support and care. We aimed to develop and validate a two-step score system for patient triage, and to identify patients at a relatively low level of mortality risk using easy-to-collect individual information. Design: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study. Setting: Four health centers from Virginia Commonwealth University, Georgetown University, the University of Florida, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Patients: Coronavirus Disease 2019-confirmed and hospitalized adult patients. Measurements and Main Results: We included 1,673 participants from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) as the derivation cohort. Risk factors for in-hospital death were identified using a multivariable logistic model with variable selection procedures after repeated missing data imputation. A two-step risk score was developed to identify patients at lower, moderate, and higher mortality risk. The first step selected increasing age, more than one pre-existing comorbidities, heart rate >100 beats/min, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min, and SpO2 <93% into the predictive model. Besides age and SpO2, the second step used blood urea nitrogen, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, platelet count, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictors. C-statistics reflected very good discrimination with internal validation at VCU (0.83, 95% CI 0.79–0.88) and external validation at the other three health systems (range, 0.79–0.85). A one-step model was also derived for comparison. Overall, the two-step risk score had better performance than the one-step score. Conclusions: The two-step scoring system used widely available, point-of-care data for triage of COVID-19 patients and is a potentially time- and cost-saving tool in practice.
AB - Objectives: An accurate prognostic score to predict mortality for adults with COVID-19 infection is needed to understand who would benefit most from hospitalizations and more intensive support and care. We aimed to develop and validate a two-step score system for patient triage, and to identify patients at a relatively low level of mortality risk using easy-to-collect individual information. Design: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study. Setting: Four health centers from Virginia Commonwealth University, Georgetown University, the University of Florida, and the University of California, Los Angeles. Patients: Coronavirus Disease 2019-confirmed and hospitalized adult patients. Measurements and Main Results: We included 1,673 participants from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) as the derivation cohort. Risk factors for in-hospital death were identified using a multivariable logistic model with variable selection procedures after repeated missing data imputation. A two-step risk score was developed to identify patients at lower, moderate, and higher mortality risk. The first step selected increasing age, more than one pre-existing comorbidities, heart rate >100 beats/min, respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/min, and SpO2 <93% into the predictive model. Besides age and SpO2, the second step used blood urea nitrogen, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, platelet count, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictors. C-statistics reflected very good discrimination with internal validation at VCU (0.83, 95% CI 0.79–0.88) and external validation at the other three health systems (range, 0.79–0.85). A one-step model was also derived for comparison. Overall, the two-step risk score had better performance than the one-step score. Conclusions: The two-step scoring system used widely available, point-of-care data for triage of COVID-19 patients and is a potentially time- and cost-saving tool in practice.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128653890&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85128653890&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fmed.2022.827261
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2022.827261
M3 - Article
C2 - 35463024
AN - SCOPUS:85128653890
SN - 2296-858X
VL - 9
JO - Frontiers in Medicine
JF - Frontiers in Medicine
M1 - 827261
ER -