PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ghani, Hakim
AU  - Shaw, Michael
AU  - Pyae, Phyoe
AU  - Cama, Rigers
AU  - Prabhakar, Meghna
AU  - Navarra, Alessio
AU  - Mogal, Rahul
AU  - Barlow, Andrew
AU  - Nordin, Nazril
AU  - Vancheeswaran, Rama
AU  - Lee, Janice Yu Ji
AU  - Chua, Felix
TI  - Evaluation of the ROX index in SARS-CoV-2 Acute Respiratory failure treated with both High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)
AID  - 10.1101/2021.03.23.21254203
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.03.23.21254203
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/24/2021.03.23.21254203.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/24/2021.03.23.21254203.full
AB  - Background Non-invasive respiratory support including high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) have been used to provide therapy in selected SARS-CoV-2 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). The value of the ROX index, a validated benchmark for outcomes in HFNO is unknown in CPAP.Objective Can the ROX, a validated benchmark in HFNO be used for measuring treatment outcomes of CPAP in SARS-COV-2 ARF?Study Design and Methods A non-randomised prospective protocol driven observational non-intensive care unit study in 130 SARS-COV-2 patients with ARF treated with non-invasive therapy from March 2020 to January 2021. The primary end point was failure of therapy (death or escalation). Secondary outcomes included time to failure including invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, the effect of escalation to CPAP from HFNO and the utility of ROX in ARF.Results HFNO was better than CPAP in treating SARS-COV-2 ARF: 17/35 (48.5%) with successful HFNO therapy versus 24/95 (25.2%) with CPAP. The ROX index was more sensitive to outcomes with CPAP compared to HFNO and distinguished treatment failure early at 1, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours with the highest sensitivity at 24 hours (ROX-24h). The AUC for the ROX-24h was 0.77 for HFNO (P<0.0001), and 0.84 for CPAP (P<0.0001). The ROX-24h cut-points predicted failure with HFNO when < 3.9 (PPV 71%, NPV 75%) and CPAP < 4.3 (PPV 75%, NPV 91%). For success, ROX-24h cut-points of 7.6 for HFNO (PPV 85%, NPV 48%) and 6.1 for CPAP (PPV 88%, NPV 62%) were observed. Escalation from HFNO to CPAP was mostly not successful.Conclusion ARF in SARS-COV-2 can be successfully managed by non-invasive support. The ROX index, validated for HFNO, provides a timely, low resource measure for both HFNO and CPAP avoiding delayed intubation.Trial registration Study approved by NHS HRAREC (20/HRA/2344;ethics 283888)What is the key question?Can the ROX, a validated benchmark in high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) be used for measuring treatment outcomes of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in SARS-COV-2 ARF?What is the bottom line?The ROX index, validated for HFNO, provides a timely, low resource measure for both HFNO and CPAP support avoiding delayed intubation.Why read on?The present study compares the efficacy of HFNO and CPAP, two common globally used modalities of treatment for SARS-CoV-2 and notes the superior utility of the ROX-24h in CPAP to predict outcome, enabling timely escalation decisions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNHS HRAREC (20/HRA/2344;ethics 283888)Funding StatementNo external fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:NHS HRAREC (20/HRA/2344;ethics 283888)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data is made available on the manuscript