COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation (C-TIME): A System for Predicting Mortality of Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia at the Time They Require Mechanical Ventilation

Robert A Raschke, Pooja Rangan, Sumit Agarwal, Suresh Uppalapu, Nehan Sher, Steven C Curry, C. William Heise
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.09.22268977

Abstract

Background An accurate system to predict mortality in patients requiring intubation for COVID-19 could help to inform consent, frame family expectations and assist end-of-life decisions.

Research objective To develop and validate a mortality prediction system called C-TIME (COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation) using variables available before intubation, determine its discriminant accuracy, and compare it to APACHE IVa and SOFA.

Methods A retrospective cohort was set in 18 medical-surgical ICUs, enrolling consecutive adults, positive by SARS-CoV 2 RNA by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or positive rapid antigen test, and undergoing endotracheal intubation. All were followed until hospital discharge or death. The combined outcome was hospital mortality or terminal extubation with hospice discharge. Twenty-five clinical and laboratory variables available 48 hours prior to intubation were entered into multiple logistic regression (MLR) and the resulting model was used to predict mortality of validation cohort patients. AUROC was calculated for C-TIME, APACHE IVa and SOFA.

Results The median age of the 2,440 study patients was 66 years; 61.6 percent were men, and 50.5 percent were Hispanic, Native American or African American. Age, gender, COPD, minimum mean arterial pressure, Glasgow Coma scale score, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, maximum creatinine and bilirubin, receiving factor Xa inhibitors, days receiving non-invasive respiratory support and days receiving corticosteroids prior to intubation were significantly associated with the outcome variable. The validation cohort comprised 1,179 patients. C-TIME had the highest AUROC of 0.75 (95%CI 0.72-0.79), vs 0.67 (0.64-0.71) and 0.59 (0.55-0.62) for APACHE and SOFA, respectively (Chi2 P<0.0001).

Conclusions C-TIME is the only mortality prediction score specifically developed and validated for COVID-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation. It has acceptable discriminant accuracy and goodness-of-fit to assist decision-making just prior to intubation. The C-TIME mortality prediction calculator can be freely accessed on-line at https://phoenixmed.arizona.edu/ctime.

Introduction

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raised concern that an overwhelming surge of critically-ill patients might require exclusion of patients with high predicted mortality from receiving mechanical ventilation (1). The majority of COVID-19 ventilator triage policies surveyed in 2020 incorporated the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to predict mortality (2). However, a subsequent study that collected SOFA score data 48 hours prior to intubation yielded a discriminant accuracy for mortality prediction of only 0.59 (95%CI: 0.55-0.63) (3). Although many other scoring systems have been developed to predict mortality in patients with COVID-19 (4-27), none focused on assessing the patient at the time of intubation, when patients, families and providers are forced to make critical decisions regarding life support. Although the capacity to provide mechanical ventilation to COVID-19 patients is improved, the need for ventilator triage is still possible in regional hotspots, and informed consent for endotracheal intubation should include discussion of prognosis. Our aim was to develop a mortality prediction system we called C-TIME (COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation) using variables typically available in the 48 hours before intubation, in order to inform consent, frame family expectations and assist end-of-life planning. Our secondary aims were to validate C-TIME, determine its discriminant accuracy and compare it to SOFA and APACHE IVa mortality prediction models.

Materials and Methods

Study design

A retrospective cohort study, approved by our IRB, was set in 18 medical surgical ICUs in the Southwest United States between 6/1/2020 and 3/23/2021. June was chosen for cohort inception when preliminary results of the RECOVERY trial (28) were released, and administration of dexamethasone rapidly adopted in our study ICUs. We randomly split our cohort in half to compose model-development and validation cohorts.

Participants

Consecutive ICU patients were included based on the following eligibility criteria: ≥18 years of age; positive SARS-CoV 2 RNA by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or positive rapid antigen test; and undergoing endotracheal intubation ≥4 hours after admission. All patients were followed until hospital discharge or death.

Variables

The main outcome variable was hospital mortality or discharge to hospice after terminal extubation – henceforth this combined outcome is referred to as “mortality”. We chose candidate predictor variables to use in model development based on previous literature (4-27) and hypotheses generated by our clinical research team. We examined our clinical dataset and only selected candidate predictor variables missing in less than 10% of study patients. We made an exception for the partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio, which we hypothesized would be a particularly important predictor (29); therefore we planned to impute missing PaO2/FiO2 data (see statistics section below).

The following 25 candidate predictor variables, collected in the time period before intubation, were chosen to include in model development. Patient characteristics included: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), prior history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, COPD, coronary artery disease, cancer or solid organ transplant. Physical examination findings included maximum temperature, lowest mean arterial pressure and lowest Glasgow Coma scale in the 48 hours prior to intubation. Laboratory variables included the highest concentration of creatinine and bilirubin, and the lowest platelet count and PaO2/FiO2 ratio in the 48 hours prior to intubation. Management variables comprised hospital days prior to intubation; hospital days receiving non-invasive respiratory support (high-flow nasal canula oxygen; continuous positive airway pressure or bilevel positive airway pressure) prior to intubation; hospital days receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone, methylprednisolone or prednisone) prior to intubation; and administration of any of the following drugs: corticosteroids, therapeutic dose heparin/enoxaparin, oral Xa inhibitors, subcutaneous or intravenous insulin, or norepinephrine infusion. We also included intubation during surge conditions, defined as the time period(s) during which ≥ 400 ventilators (>5.5 ventilators per 100,000 population) were in use by COVID-19 patients in the state of Arizona where most of our study hospitals were located. By this criteria, surge conditions occurred in our ICUs in the summer (6/23/2020 - 8/7/2020) and winter (12/3/2020 - 2/14/2021) (30). Variables needed to calculate the SOFA score were also extracted in the 48 hours prior to intubation and used to derive the associated predicted mortality for each patient (31,32). Variables used to calculate APACHE IVa predicted mortality were obtained in the first 24 hours after ICU admission, as the APACHE system is designed to operate.

Data sources

We extracted and de-identified clinical data from a Cerner Millenium® electronic medical record (EMR). Our hospital system uses the proprietary APACHE IVa® severity scoring system (Cerner Corp, Kansas City MO) to calculate predicted hospital mortality for each ICU patient that meets criteria for APACHE calculations (33).

Study size

We calculated that a sample size of 2500 patients would allow analysis of 25 candidate predictor variables in our logistic regression - one variable for every 50 patients in the model-development and validation cohorts of 1,250 patients, each.

Statistical Analysis

All study patients underwent randomization into two equal-sized model-development and validation cohorts. Missing FiO2 values were imputed as the mean FiO2 for all study patients for whom FiO2 was known. Missing PaO2 values were imputed as the mean PaO2 of all study patients receiving the same FiO2. The 25 candidate predictor variables were entered into backwards, step-wise, multiple logistic regression (MLR) using the model-development cohort, with mortality as the dependent outcome variable. We retained all variables that remained in the model at P≤0.05.

The MLR logistic equation from the model development cohort was then applied to calculate predicted mortality for each patient in the validation cohort and to calculate Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2 and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit tests. We compared goodness-of-fit and sensitivity for C-TIME versus SOFA and APACHE IVa in patients with very high predicted mortality, for whom prognostic information is most likely to affect end-of-life decisions. The three models were each used to identify clinically important patient subgroups with ≥75%, ≥90% and ≥95% predicted mortality, and the observed mortality proportion in each of the resulting subgroups was enumerated. The number of observed deaths in each subgroup over the total number of observed deaths in the validation cohort equaled the sensitivity of each model at each of the three predicted mortality cutoffs. We also looked at observed mortality proportion for patients C-TIME predicted to have <50% mortality. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC), a measurement of discriminant accuracy, for C-TIME, SOFA and APACHE IVa were calculated and compared using the Chi-squared statistic. The Wilson method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals for single proportions. We used STATA® Version 17 (Statacorp, College Station, TX) for all statistical analyses.

Sensitivity analysis

We also calculated AUROCs for C-TIME and SOFA using only validation cohort patients for whom FiO2 and PaO2 were known (i.e. excluding patients with imputed values). These were compared to the AUROCs of our primary analysis by using z-tests on equality of proportions to test whether data imputation affected AUROC.

Results

Between 6/1/2020 and 3/23/2021, 18,431 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to study hospitals. Of these, 4,695 were admitted to the ICU and 2,440 were intubated ≥4 hours after admission. Characteristics of these 2,440 study patients are presented in the table 1. The median age was 66 years, 61.6 percent were men, and 50.5 percent were Hispanic, Native American or African American. Eighty-six percent of patients received corticosteroids. Eleven variables were significant in the final MLR model (see table 2). The validation cohort comprised 1,219 patients of whom 1,179 had complete data for analysis by MLR. Observed mortality in the validation cohort was 65.1%.

View this table:
Table 1: Clinical characteristics of 2440 study patients.
View this table:
Table 2: Multiple Logistic Regression model with significant predictor variables for the outcome mortality in the model-development cohort.

C-TIME AUROC was 0.75 (95%CI 0.72-0.79), Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2 = 0.25, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow Chi2 showed acceptable goodness-of-fit with P = 0.29 in the validation cohort. C-TIME classified 486 (26.3%), 141 (11.6%) and 43 (3.5%) validation cohort patients as having ≥75%, ≥90% and ≥95% predicted mortality respectively. Observed mortality in these three subgroups was 82% (95%CI: 78-85%), 91% (95%CI: 85-95%) and 95% (95%CI: 85-99%), respectively. In contrast, APACHE IVa classified 46 (3.8%), 15 (1.2%) and 5 (0.4%) patients as having ≥75%, ≥90% and ≥95% predicted mortality, respectively. Observed mortality in the three APACHE IVa subgroups was 89% (95%CI: 77-95%), 80% (9F%CI: 55-93%) and 100% (95%CI 57-100%). The highest SOFA score achieved predicted mortality of 89%; therefore SOFA did not predict any patient to have >90% mortality (see table 3). C-TIME also classified 246/1179 (21%) of patients as having ≤50% mortality – these patients had a mean predicted mortality of 32.1% and an observed mortality of 35.7%.

View this table:
Table 3:

Observed mortality proportions for three subgroups of patients with high predicted mortality (≥75, ≥90 and ≥95% predicted mortality) identified by three mortality prediction systems.

Nine-hundred-sixty-two patients in our validation cohort had met criteria for APACHE IVa calculations and were included in our comparison of AUROC between C-TIME, APACHE IVa and SOFA. C-TIME had the highest AUROC of 0.75 (95%CI 0.72-0.79), vs 0.67 (0.64-0.71) and 0.59 (0.55-0.62) for APACHE and SOFA, respectively (Chi2 P<0.0001). See figure.

Figure legend
Figure legend

Comparative AUROC of C-TIME, APACHE IVa, and SOFA mortality prediction systems.

Sensitivity analysis in relationship to imputed data

FiO2 was imputed to be 95.6% in 202 patients (8.3%). This is unlikely to have introduced bias since 1950/2240 (87%) of study patients for whom FiO2 was recorded had an FiO2 of 100%. PaO2 was imputed in 647 cases (26.5%). Sensitivity analysis showed that C-TIME and SOFA AUROCs in the subset of validation patients without imputed PaO2 were 0.75 (CI 0.71-0.79) and 0.58 (CI 0.54-0.62) respectively – essentially identical to AUROCs calculated for the full validation cohort.

Discussion

The C-TIME mortality prediction model, based on eleven easily obtained clinical and laboratory variables, has better discriminant accuracy than APACHE IVa with 145 variables (33). Furthermore, the C-TIME model has acceptable “goodness of fit” and sensitivity in patients with high predicted mortality, in whom C-TIME may be helpful in making end-of-life decisions. Our study hospitals range from tertiary academic centers to community and critical access facilities serving a variety of persons from urban and rural communities with a wide diversity of racial/ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status, enhancing the external generalizability of our findings.

Well over one hundred prognostic systems, including general ICU systems (such as SOFA and APACHE), and novel systems specifically developed for COVID-19 patients have already been published to predict clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 (4). These vary by target patient population, predictor variables and outcomes of interest. To provide context for C-TIME, we reviewed comparable scoring systems that were developed and validated specifically for hospitalized COVID-19 patients and which incorporated commonly available clinical and laboratory predictor variables, and which reported AUROCs for in-hospital mortality (5-27).

Several features distinguish C-TIME from other validated COVID-19 mortality prediction systems we reviewed. 1) C-TIME is the only system that specifically evaluates patients with COVID-19 pneumonia just before they require mechanical ventilation. The discriminant accuracy of other prognostic models at this point in a patient’s clinical course are unknown, due to spectrum effect: “When designing a predictive scoring system, the study cohort should be as similar as possible to the population in which the test is intended to be used” (34). 2) The C-TIME study cohort had by far the highest reported mortality (65%) of any of the previous studies, as would be expected for intubated COVID-19 patients (35). The mortality of the study cohort has a strong influence on the operating characteristics of associated mortality prediction systems (34) – another reason why previously reported mortality prediction scores are likely not reliable if used at the time of intubation. 3) Other mortality prediction systems utilized study cohorts that included patients admitted prior to 6/2020, when preliminary results of RECOVERY were released. The inclusion of significant numbers of patients who did not receive corticosteroids could limit their generalizability in relationship to current practice patterns. Eighty-six percent of our study patients received corticosteroids before intubation. 4) C-TIME is the only model that incorporates treatment variables. Days receiving corticosteroids and days receiving non-invasive respiratory support prior to intubation were associated with mortality in our model-development and validation cohorts, and were also significantly associated with surge conditions (p=0.0003 and 0.005, respectively). Surviving patients received a median of two days steroids and two days non-invasive respiratory support; non-survivors received a median of nine days steroids and eight days non-invasive respiratory support. A recent study showed that mortality increased significantly during the winter COVID-19 surge (36) however a meta-analysis concluded that delaying intubation does not influence mortality (37). It is possible that the associations observed in our study might be due to prolonged efforts at non-invasive respiratory support and corticosteroid treatment of patients during surge conditions, selecting treatment non-responders for intubation. Inclusion of these treatment variables associated with surge conditions suggests that C-TIME might retain generalizability regardless of whether or not surge conditions prevail in the clinical setting in which it is used.

One particular C-TIME variable deserves brief comment. We tested pre-intubation antithrombotic therapy with heparin, enoxaparin and factor Xa inhibitors in model development based on the hypothesis that these drugs might prevent fatal thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19. However, therapeutic heparin/enoxaparin fell out of the model, and receiving factor Xa inhibitors was surprisingly associated with increased mortality. Analysis of a sample of these patients showed that pre-existing atrial fibrillation was the indication for factor Xa inhibitors in 80% of patients. It is possible that receiving a factor Xa inhibitor was a confounding variable representing pre-existing atrial fibrillation in our model.

Several other mortality prediction systems with acceptable operating characteristics are available for prognostication at the time of admission to the hospital, rather than at the time of intubation. The 4C score is supported by the largest study cohort and has an AUROC (0.77) similar to C-TIME (5). We noted the highest AUROCs were reported for systems that prognosticated using variables from the time of admission in Hubei province early in the pandemic (8,14,18,23,25). We feel these results are likely irreproducible outside the special circumstances under which they were reported. This contention is supported by a study using data from the Veterans Affairs Data Warehouse (11) that externally-validated several of these prediction scores (23,25) and found much lower AUROCs than those originally reported: 0.68 vs. 0.91, 0.72 vs. 0.94, respectively. This phenomenon was also demonstrated for the SOFA score, which achieved AUROCs of 0.89 (0.83-0.96) (39) and 0.99 (0.98-1.00) (40) in Hubei province early in the pandemic, versus 0.58 and 0.61 (0.53-0.70) in larger, more recent studies from the US and UK (3,5).

Examination of Table 3 reveals that C-TIME has good fit when it predicts very high mortality, and that it is more sensitive than APACHE IVa or SOFA at identifying non-survivors. There were 399 fatal outcomes among patients predicted by C-TIME to have ≥75% predicted mortality, yielding a sensitivity of 399/794 (50.3%). The comparative sensitivity for APACHE IVa was 41/794 (5.2%) and for SOFA was 92/794 (11.6%). Sensitivity quantifies the potential clinical impact that C-TIME could have should resuscitative measures be limited due to high predicted mortality.

Limitations of the study

Missing data was a major complication of our retrospective cohort design that limited us from including less-frequently-ordered predictor variables such as C-reactive protein, and led us to impute missing PaO2 and FiO2 data. Our sensitivity analysis showed that the later did not affect our AUROC estimates. Our EMR data source limited our ability to include variables not recorded as discrete data, such as COVID-19 vaccination status and pre-existing atrial fibrillation.

The discriminant accuracy achieved by C-TIME was modest, although similar to several other COVID-19 mortality prediction systems with AUROCs ranging 0.72-0.79 (5,10,17,19,21,38). We believe that it is inherently difficult to predict COVID-19 mortality at the time of intubation because such patients are relatively clinical homogeneous; most have life-threatening, single organ, respiratory failure (see table 1) (3). Low variation in predictor variables reduces discriminant accuracy. This could explain why APACHE IVa, which achieved AUROC of 0.88 in a large general ICU population (33), only yielded an AUROC of 0.66 in our study cohort.

C-TIME (and all other COVID-19 prognostic systems) are likely to lose discriminant accuracy over time, as factors influencing survival evolve. These factors might include advances in therapy and emergence of new viral strains. The aforementioned decline in discriminant accuracy reported in Hubei vs the US and UK demonstrate that discriminant accuracy demonstrated in one historical juncture is likely not generalizable in future clinical settings. Thus, any prognostic scoring system for COVID-19 will likely require repeated validation over time.

Conclusions

C-TIME is the only currently available mortality predictive score specifically developed and validated for COVID-19 patients who require intubation. It has acceptable discriminant accuracy and goodness-of-fit to assist informed consent for intubation and other end-of-life issues that occur specifically at this critical juncture in the patient’s care. The C-TIME predicted mortality calculator can be accessed free on-line at: https://phoenixmed.arizona.edu/ctime

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Guarantor statement

Dr Raschke had full access to all of the data in the study and takes personal responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Author Contributions

Concept and design: Raschke, Rangan, Agarwal, Uppalapu, Sher, Curry and Heise.Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Agarwal, Sher Drafting of the manuscript: Raschke.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Rangan, Agarwal, Uppalapu, Sher, Curry and Heise.

Statistical analysis: Rangan.

Obtained funding: Curry.

Supervision: Curry.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

This research was performed with partial support from a Flinn Foundation grant, but the Flinn Foundation had no influence over the conduct of the study, interpretation of the data, preparation of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication.

Acknowledgements

Footnotes

  • The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

  • Funded in part by a grant from the Flinn Foundation, Phoenix, AZ.

Abbreviations

APACHE
acute physiology and chronic health evaluation
AUROC
area under the receiver-operating curve
BMI
body mass index
COPD
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
COVID-19
coronavirus disease 2019
C-TIME
COVID-19 time of intubation mortality evaluation
FiO2
fraction of inspired oxygen
MLR
multiple logistic regression
PaO2
partial pressure of arterial oxygen
SARS CoV-2
severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
SOFA
sequential organ failure assessment

References

  1. 1).↵
    Truog RD, Mitchell C, Daley GQ. The toughest triage – Allocating ventilators in a pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1973–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2).↵
    Matheny AH, Gibb TS, McGuire AL, Wolpe PR et al. Ventilator triage policies during the COVID-19 pandemic at U.S. hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:188–194.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3).↵
    Raschke RA, Agarwal S, Rangan P, Heise CW, Curry SC. Discriminant Accuracy of the SOFA Score for Determining the Probable Mortality of Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia Requiring Mechanical Ventilation. [Published online February 17, 2021] JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1545.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4).↵
    Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins G S, Riley R D, Heinze G, Schuit E et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. [published online Apr 7,2020] BMJ.2020;369:m1328. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1328.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5).↵
    Knight SR, Ho A, Pius P, Buchan I. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score. BMJ 2020;370:m3339. doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3339.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6).
    Torres-Macho J, Ryan P, Valencia J, Pérez-Butragueño M, et al. The PANDEMYC Score. An easily applicable and interpretable model for predicting mortality associated with COVID-19. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3066.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7).
    Berry DA, Ip A, Lewis BE, Berry SM, et al. Development and validation of a prognostic 40-day mortality risk model among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. [published online July 30,2021] PLoS One. 2021;16:e0255228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255228.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8).
    Weng Z, Chen Q, Li S, Li H, Zhang Q, et al. ANDC: an early warning score to predict mortality risk for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019. J Transl Med. 2020;18:328.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9).
    Ghidini M, Indini A, Rijavec E, Bareggi C, et al. The appropriateness of invasive ventilation in COVID-19 positive cancer patients: Proposal of a new prognostic score. Viruses. 2021;13:508.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10).
    Halasz G, Sperti M, Villani M, Michelucci U, et al. A machine learning approach for mortality prediction in COVID-19 pneumonia: Development and evaluation of the Piacenza Score. [published online May 31,2021] J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e29058. doi: 10.2196/29058.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11).↵
    El-Solh AA, Lawson Y, Carter M, El-Solh DA, Mergenhagen KA. Comparison of in-hospital mortality risk prediction models from COVID-19. [published online Dec 28, 2020] PLoS One. 2020;15:e0244629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244629.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12).
    Berenguer J, Borobia AM, Ryan P, Rodríguez-Baño J, et al; COVID-19@Spain and COVID@HULP Study Groups. Development and validation of a prediction model for 30-day mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: the COVID-19 SEIMC score. Thorax. 2021;76::920–929.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13).
    Esteban Ronda V, Ruiz Alcaraz S, Ruiz Torregrosa P, Giménez Suau M, et al. Application of validated severity scores for pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2. Med Clin (Engl Ed). 2021;15:99–105.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14).
    Chen B, Gu HQ, Liu Y, Zhang G, et al. A model to predict the risk of mortality in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2021;19:1694–1700.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15).
    Chowdhury MEH, Rahman T, Khandakar A, Al-Madeed S, et al. An early warning tool for predicting mortality risk of COVID-19 patients using machine learning. [published online Apr 21, 2021] Cognit Comput. 2021;21:1–16. doi: 10.1007/s12559-020-09812-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16).
    Yan, L., Zhang, HT., Goncalves, J. et al. An interpretable mortality prediction model for COVID-19 patients. Nat Mach Intell. 2020:283–288.
  17. 17).
    Altschul, D.J., Unda, S.R., Benton, J. et al. A novel severity score to predict inpatient mortality in COVID-19 patients. [published online Oct 7,2020] Sci Rep 10, 16726. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73962-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18).
    Yuan Y, Sun C, Tang X, Cheng C, et al. Development and Validation of a Prognostic Risk Score System for COVID-19 Inpatients: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study in China. [published online Nov 28,2020] Engineering (Beijing). doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2020.10.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19).
    Shi Y, Pandita A, Hardesty A, McCarthy M, Aridi J, Weiss ZF, Beckwith CG, Farmakiotis D. Validation of pneumonia prognostic scores in a statewide cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. [published online Dec 31,2020] Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75:e13926. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13926.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20).
    Abdulaal A, Patel A, Charani E, Denny S, Mughal N, Moore L. Prognostic Modeling of COVID-19 Using Artificial Intelligence in the United Kingdom: Model Development and Validation. [pubished online Aug 25, 2020] J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e20259. doi:10.2196/20259.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21).
    Manocha KK, Kirzner J, Ying X, Yeo I, et al. Troponin and other biomarker levels and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Derivation and validation of the HA2T2 COVID-19 Mortality Risk Score. [published online Oct 30, 2020] J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e018477. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.018477.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22).
    El-Solh AA, Lawson Y, Carter M, El-Solh DA, Mergenhagen KA. Comparison of in-hospital mortality risk prediction models from COVID-19. [published online Dec 28,2020] PLoS One. 2020;15:e0244629. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244629.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23).↵
    Chen R, Liang W, Jiang M, Guan W, et al; Medical Treatment Expert Group for COVID-19. Risk factors of fatal outcome in hospitalized subjects with Coronavirus Disease 2019 from a nationwide analysis in China. Chest. 2021;158:97–105.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24).
    Sottile PD, Albers D, DeWitt PE, et al. Real-Time Electronic Health Record Mortality Prediction During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study. MedRxiv. [Preprint published online Jan 15 2021] doi:10.1101/2021.01.14.21249793.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25).↵
    Shang Y, Liu T, Wei Y, Li J, Shao L, Liu M, Zhang Y, Zhao Z, Xu H, Peng Z, Zhou F, Wang X. Scoring systems for predicting mortality for severe patients with COVID-19. [published online Jul 3,2020] EClinicalMedicine. 2020;24:100426. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100426.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26).
    Yu C, Lei Q, Li W, et al. Clinical characteristics, associated factors, and predicting COVID-19 mortality risk: A retrospective study in Wuhan, China. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59:168–175.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27).↵
    Wang K, Zuo P, Liu Y, et al. Clinical and Laboratory Predictors of In-hospital Mortality in Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019: A Cohort Study in Wuhan, China. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71:2079–2088.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28).↵
    Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson J, Mafham M, et al. for the RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Effect of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 – Preliminary report. [published online June 22,2020] MedRxiv 2020.06.22.2013727. doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29).↵
    The ARDS Definition Task Force*. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307:2526–2533.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30).↵
    Arizona Department of Health Services. COVID-19 Data Dashboard. Updated daily. [Accessed 4/1/2021] https://www.azdhs.gov/covid19/data/index.php#confirmed-by-day.
  31. 31).↵
    Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, et al. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32).↵
    Ferreira FL, Bota DP, Bross A, Mélot C, Vincent J. Serial Evaluation of the SOFA Score to Predict Outcome in Critically Ill Patients. JAMA. 2001;286:1754–1758.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33).↵
    Zimmerman JE1, Kramer AA, McNair DS, Malila FM. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2006 May;34:1297–310.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34).↵
    Usher-Smith J A, Sharp, S J, Griffin S J. The spectrum effect in tests for risk prediction, screening, and diagnosis. BMJ 2016;353 :i3139. doi:10.1136/bmj.i3139.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. 35).↵
    Lim ZJ, Subramaniam A, Ponnapa Reddy M, Blecher G, et al. Case fatality rates for patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. A Meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;203:54–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36).↵
    Kadri SS, Sun J, Lawandi A, Strich JR, et al. Association Between Caseload Surge and COVID-19 Survival in 558 U.S. Hospitals, March to August 2020. Ann Intern Med. 2021:M21–1213. doi: 10.7326/M21-1213.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37).↵
    Papoutsi, E., Giannakoulis, V.G., Xourgia, E. et al. Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies. Crit Care. 2021;25:121.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38).
    Moreno-Pérez Ó, Andrés M, León-Ramirez JM, et al. The COVID-GRAM Tool for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in Europe. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(7):1000–1001. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0491.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39).↵
    Liu S, Yao N, Qiu Y, He C. Predictive performance of SOFA and qSOFA for in-hospital mortality in severe novel coronavirus disease. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38:2074–2080.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40).↵
    Yang Z, Hu Q, Huang F, Xiong S, Sun Y. The prognostic value of the SOFA score in patients with COVID-19: A retrospective, observational study. [published online Aug 13. 2021] Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(32):e26900. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026900.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted January 11, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
COVID-19 Time of Intubation Mortality Evaluation (C-TIME): A System for Predicting Mortality of Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia at the Time They Require Mechanical Ventilation
Robert A Raschke, Pooja Rangan, Sumit Agarwal, Suresh Uppalapu, Nehan Sher, Steven C Curry, C. William Heise
medRxiv 2022.01.09.22268977; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.09.22268977
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area