Comparison of ROX and HACOR scales to predict high-flow nasal cannula failure in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia

Abstract

The pandemic of SARSCov2 infection has created a challenge in health services worldwide. Some scales have been applied to evaluate the risk of intubation, such as the ROX and HACOR. The objective of this study is to compare the predictive capacity of the HACOR scale and the ROX index and define the optimal cut-off points. Study of diagnostic tests based on a retrospective cohort. Composite outcome was the proportion of patients that needed endotracheal intubation (ETI) or died of COVID19 pneumonia. Discrimination capacity was compared by the area under the curve of each of the two scales and the optimal cut-off point was determined using the Liu method. 245 patients were included, of which 140 (57%) required ETI and 152 (62%) had the composite end result of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure. The discrimination capacity was similar for the two scales with an area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.71 and 0.72 for the HACOR scale for the ROX index, respectively. The optimal cut-off point for the ROX index was 5.6 (sensitivity 62% specificity 65%), while the optimal cut-off point for the HACOR scale was 5.5 (sensitivity 66% specificity 65%). The HACOR scale and the ROX index have a moderate predictive capacity to predict failures to the HFNC strategy. They can be used in conjunction with other clinical variables to define which patients may require invasive mechanical ventilation.

Figure 1

AUROC for HACOR and ROX scores in predicting the final composite outcome (requirement of endotracheal intubation or death by COVID19) after 2 h of High flow nasal cannula. ROX ROC: 0.72 sensitivity 62% specificity 65% CI 0.66–0.79. HACOR ROC: 0.71 sensitivity 66% specificity 65% CI 0.65–0.78.