Performance of the CURB65, NEWS2, qSOFA, SOFA, REDS, ISARIC 4C, PRIEST and the Novel COVID-19 Severity Scores, Used to Risk-Stratify Emergency Department Patients with COVID-19, on Mortality—An Observational Cohort Study

Abstract

Objective: To compare the performance of established scoring systems (CURB65, NEWS2, qSOFA, SOFA and REDS) to the newly developed scores (ISARIC 4C, PRIEST and novel COVID-19 severity scores) in mortality prediction for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection in the emergency department (ED). Method: A retrospective observational cohort study of adult patients attending a teaching hospital ED who fulfilled the criteria for suspected sepsis and tested positive for COVID-19. The scores were calculated for each patient. The primary outcome measure was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each score. The area under the ROC (AUROC) curves were compared to that of the ISARIC 4C score. The cut-off points were determined by the statistical software package. The test characteristics at the cut-off scores were noted. Results: Of the 504 patients studied, 153 (30.5%) died in hospital. The AUROC of the ISARIC 4C score was similar to all of the scores except for the NEWS2 score and qSOFA scores, which were significantly lower. The test characteristics of the different scores were similar. Conclusions: In this single-centre study, the newly developed COVID scores outperformed the NEWS2 and qSOFA scores but did not perform better than the other scores studied.

Keywords

• COVID-19
• clinical prediction rule
• emergency department
• prognosis
• discrimination
• sepsis