Western Journal of Emergency Medicine (Sep 2023)

Prognostic Accuracy of SpO2-based Respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for Predicting In-hospital Mortality

  • Daun Jeong,
  • Gun Tak Lee,
  • Jong Eun Park,
  • Sung Yeon Hwang,
  • Taerim Kim,
  • Se Uk Lee,
  • Hee Yoon,
  • Won Chul Cha,
  • Min Seob Sim,
  • Ik Joon Jo,
  • Tae Gun Shin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.59417
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 6
pp. 1056 – 1063

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: In this study we aimed to investigate the prognostic accuracy for predicting in-hospital mortality using respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores by the conventional method of missing-value imputation with normal partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)- and oxygen saturation (SpO2)-based estimation methods. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients with suspected infection in the emergency department. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) and calibration results of the conventional method (normal value imputation for missing PaO2) and six SpO2-based methods: using methods A, B, PaO2 is estimated by dividing SpO2 by a scale; with methods C and D, PaO2 was estimated by a mathematical model from a previous study; with methods E, F, respiratory SOFA scores was estimated by SpO2 thresholds and respiratory support use; with methods A, C, E are SpO2-based estimation for all PaO2 values, while methods B, D, F use such estimation only for missing PaO2 values. Results: Among the 15,119 patients included in the study, the in-hospital mortality rate was 4.9%. The missing PaO2was 56.0%. The calibration plots were similar among all methods. Each method yielded AUROCs that ranged from 0.735–0.772. The AUROC for the conventional method was 0.755 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.736–0.773). The AUROC for method C (0.772; 95% CI 0.754–0.790) was higher than that of the conventional method, which was an SpO2-based estimation for all PaO2 values. The AUROC for total SOFA score from method E (0.815; 95% CI 0.800–0.831) was higher than that from the conventional method (0.806; 95% CI 0.790–0.822), in which respiratory SOFA was calculated by the predefined SpO2 cut-offs and oxygen support. Conclusion: In non-ICU settings, respiratory SOFA scores estimated by SpO2 might have acceptable prognostic accuracy for predicting in-hospital mortality. Our results suggest that SpO2-based respiratory SOFA score calculation might be an alternative for evaluating respiratory organ failure in the ED and clinical research settings.