Viruses (Nov 2023)

The Validity of the ROX Index and APACHE II in Predicting Early, Late, and Non-Responses to Non-Invasive Ventilation in Patients with COVID-19 in a Low-Resource Setting

  • Sumalatha Arunachala,
  • Ashwaghosha Parthasarathi,
  • Chetak Kadabasal Basavaraj,
  • Mohammed Kaleem Ullah,
  • Shreya Chandran,
  • Hariharan Venkataraman,
  • Prashant Vishwanath,
  • Koustav Ganguly,
  • Swapna Upadhyay,
  • Padukudru Anand Mahesh

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/v15112231
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 11
p. 2231

Abstract

Read online

The use of the Ratio of Oxygen Saturation (ROX) index to predict the success of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) is well established. The ROX can also predict the need for intubation, mortality, and is easier to calculate compared with APACHE II. In this prospective study, the primary aim is to compare the ROX (easily administered in resource limited setting) to APACHE II for clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality and the need for intubation. Our secondary aim was to identify thresholds for the ROX index in predicting outcomes such as the length of ICU stay and failure of non-invasive respiratory support therapies and to assess the effectiveness of using the ROX (day 1 at admission, day 2, and day 3) versus Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II scores (at admission) in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) to predict early, late, and non-responders. After screening 208 intensive care unit patients, a total of 118 COVID-19 patients were enrolled, who were categorized into early (n = 38), late (n = 34), and non-responders (n = 46). Multinomial logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC), Multivariate Cox regression, and Kaplan–Meier analysis were conducted. Multinomial logistic regressions between late and early responders and between non- and early responders were associated with reduced risk of treatment failures. ROC analysis for early vs. late responders showed that APACHE II on admission had the largest area under the curve (0.847), followed by the ROX index on admission (0.843). For responders vs. non-responders, we found that the ROX index on admission had a slightly better AUC than APACHE II on admission (0.759 vs. 0.751). A higher ROX index on admission [HR (95% CI): 0.29 (0.13–0.52)] and on day 2 [HR (95% CI): 0.55 (0.34–0.89)] were associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure. The ROX index can be used as an independent predictor of early response and mortality outcomes to HFNO and NIV in COVID-19 pneumonia, especially in low-resource settings, and is non-inferior to APACHE II.

Keywords