Success or Failure of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy: The ROX Index Is Good, but a Modified ROX Index May Be Better.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Karim HMR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6603054 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Success or Failure of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy: The ROX Index Is Good, but a Modified ROX Index May Be Better.
Karim Habib M R HMR Esquinas Antonio M AM
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20190701 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a respiratory support measure for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients that has been increasingly used in the emergency department (ED). Although the respiratory rate oxygenation (ROX) index can predict HFNC success, its utility in emergency COVID-19 patients has not been well-established. Also, no studies have compared it to its simpler component, the oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO2/FiO2 [SF]) ratio, or its modified version incorporating heart rate. Therefore, we aimed to compare the utility of the SF ratio, the ROX index (SF ratio/respiratory rate), and the modified ROX index (ROX index/heart rate) in predicting HFNC success in emergency COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe conducted this multicenter retrospective study at five EDs in Thailand between January-December 2021. Adult patients with COVID-19 treated with HFNC in the ED were included. The three study parameters were recorded at 0 and 2 hours. The primary outcome was HFNC success, defined as no requirement of mechanical ventilation at HFNC termination.ResultsA total of 173 patients were recruited; 55 (31.8%) had successful treatment. The two-hour SF ratio yielded the highest discrimination capacity (AUROC 0.651, 95% CI 0.558-0.744), followed by two-hour ROX and modified ROX indices (AUROC 0.612 and 0.606, respectively). The two-hour SF ratio also had the best calibration and overall model performance. At its optimal cut-point of 128.19, it gave a balanced sensitivity (65.3%) and specificity (61.8%). The two-hour SF≥128.19 was also significantly and independently associated with HFNC failure (adjusted odds ratio 0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.65; P=0.003).ConclusionThe SF ratio predicted HFNC success better than the ROX and modified ROX indices in ED patients with COVID-19. With its simplicity and efficiency, it may be the appropriate tool to guide management and ED disposition for COVID-19 patients receiving HFNC in the ED.
| S-EPMC10284520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGiven the pathophysiology of hypoxemia in patients with Covid-19 acute respiratory failure (ARF), it seemed necessary to evaluate whether ROX index (ratio SpO2/FiO2 to respiratory rate) could accurately predict intubation or death in these patients initially treated by high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO). We aimed, therefore, to assess the accuracy of ROX index to discriminate between HFNO failure (sensitivity) and HFNO success (specificity).MethodsWe designed a multicentre retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with Covid-19 ARF. In addition to its accuracy, we assessed the usefulness of ROX index to predict HFNO failure (intubation or death) via logistic regression.ResultsAmong 218 ARF patients screened, 99 were first treated with HFNO, including 49 HFNO failures (46 intubations, 3 deaths before intubation). At HFNO initiation (H0), ROX index sensitivity was 63% (95%CI 48-77%) and specificity 76% (95%CI 62-87%) using Youden's index. With 4.88 as ROX index cut-off at H12, sensitivity was 29% (95%CI 14-48%) and specificity 90% (95%CI 78-97%). Youden's index yielded 8.73 as ROX index cut-off at H12, with 87% sensitivity (95%CI 70-96%) and 45% specificity (95%CI 31-60%). ROX index at H0 was associated with HFNO failure (p = 0.0005) in univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that SAPS II (p = 0.0003) and radiographic extension of pulmonary injuries (p = 0.0263), rather than ROX index, were predictive of HFNO failure.ConclusionsROX index cut-off values seem population-specific and the ROX index appears to have a technically acceptable but clinically low capability to discriminate between HFNO failures and successes in Covid-19 ARF patients. In addition, SAPS II and pulmonary injuries at ICU admission appear more useful than ROX index to predict the risk of intubation.
| S-EPMC10796865 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10764845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ROX index (ratio of pulse oximetry/FIO2 to respiratory rate) has been validated to predict high flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) outcomes in patients with pneumonia. We evaluated a modified ROX index incorporating heart rate (HR) in patients initiated on HFNC for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and as a preventative treatment following planned extubation.MethodsWe performed a prospective observational cohort study of 145 patients treated with HFNC. ROX-HR index was defined as the ratio of ROX index over HR (beats/min), multiplied by a factor of 100. Evaluation was performed using area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and cutoffs assessed for prediction of HFNC failure: defined as the need for mechanical ventilation.ResultsNinety-nine (68.3%) and 46 (31.7%) patients were initiated on HFNC for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and following a planned extubation, respectively. The majority (86.9%) of patients had pneumonia as a primary diagnosis, and 85 (56.6%) patients were immunocompromised. Sixty-one (42.1%) patients required intubation (HFNC failure). Amongst patients on HFNC for acute respiratory failure, HFNC failure was associated with a lower ROX and ROX-HR index recorded at time points between 1 and 48 h. Within the first 12 h, both indices performed with the highest AUROC at 10 h as follows: 0.723 (95% CI 0.605-0.840) and 0.739 (95% CI 0.626-0.853) for the ROX and ROX-HR index respectively. A ROX-HR index of > 6.80 was significantly associated with a lower risk of HFNC failure (hazard ratio 0.301 (95% CI 0.143-0.663)) at 10 h. This association was also observed at 2, 6, 18, and 24h, even with correction for potential confounding factors. For HFNC initiated post-extubation, only the ROX-HR index remained significantly associated with HFNC failure at all recorded time points between 1 and 24 h. A ROX-HR > 8.00 at 10 h was significantly associated with a lower risk of HFNC failure (hazard ratio 0.176 (95% CI 0.051-0.604)).ConclusionWhile validation studies are required, the ROX-HR index appears to be a promising tool for early identification of treatment failure in patients initiated on HFNC for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or as a preventative treatment after a planned extubation.
| S-EPMC7310118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background High-flow nasal cannula has been a promising initial respiratory support measure for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in the emergency department (ED). However, delayed detection of HFNC failure is associated with increased mortality. The ROX index is a tool that can help predict HFNC success. Nonetheless, its utility in ED patients is limited, and no studies have compared it with the HACOR scale, another tool that may be as accurate in predicting HFNC failure. Therefore, we aimed to compare the prognostic utility of the ROX index and the HACOR scale in emergency AHRF patients. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at the ED of Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, between August 2018 and February 2020. Adult patients with AHRF requiring HFNC in the ED were included. The ROX index and the HACOR scale were measured at 1, 2, and 6 h after HFNC initiation. The primary outcome was HFNC success, defined as no intolerance or escalation towards mechanical ventilation or non-invasive ventilation within 48 h. Results A total of 75 patients were enrolled; 52 (69.3%) had a successful treatment. The ROX index was higher in the success group, while the HACOR scale was lower at all timepoints. The ROX index yielded generally higher discrimination capacity based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) than the HACOR scale [AUROC at 1, 2, and 6 h = 0.815, 0.784, 0.853 for ROX in predicting HFNC success and 0.733, 0.690, and 0.764 for HACOR in predicting HFNC failure]. The ROX index measured at 6 h at the cut-point of 4.88 had 92.98% sensitivity, 61.11% specificity, 88.33% positive predictive value, and 73.33% negative predictive value with a diagnostic accuracy of 85.33%. Conclusion The ROX index had superior prognostic utility in predicting HFNC outcome (success/failure) compared to the HACOR scale in patients with AHRF in the ED setting. Moreover, it is less complex and more efficient to be employed at bedside. Therefore, the ROX index is a more appropriate tool to guide further management and potential escalation therapy for AHRF patients with HFNC therapy initiated in the ED. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12245-023-00477-1.
| S-EPMC9830606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelayed intubation is associated with high mortality. There is a lack of objective criteria to decide the time of intubation. We assessed a recently described combined oxygenation index (ROX index) to predict intubation in immunocompromised patients. The study is a secondary analysis of randomized trials in immunocompromised patients, including all patients who received high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The first objective was to evaluate the accuracy of the ROX index to predict intubation for patients with acute respiratory failure.ResultsIn the study, 302 patients received HFNC. Acute respiratory failure was mostly related to pneumonia (n = 150, 49.7%). Within 2 (1-3) days, 115 (38.1%) patients were intubated. The ICU mortality rate was 27.4% (n = 83). At 6 h, the ROX index was lower for patients who needed intubation compared with those who did not [4.79 (3.69-7.01) vs. 6.10 (4.48-8.68), p < 0.001]. The accuracy of the ROX index to predict intubation was poor [AUC = 0.623 (0.557-0.689)], with low performance using the threshold previously found (4.88). In multivariate analysis, a higher ROX index was still independently associated with a lower intubation rate (OR = 0.89 [0.82-0.96], p = 0.04).ConclusionA ROX index greater than 4.88 appears to have a poor ability to predict intubation in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, although it remains highly associated with the risk of intubation and may be useful to stratify such risk in future studies.
| S-EPMC7838224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe ratio of oxygen saturation (ROX) index, defined as the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) to respiratory rate, can help identify patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure at high risk for intubation following high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) initiation; however, whether it is effective for predicting intubation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients receiving HFNC remains unknown. Moreover, the SpO2/FiO2 ratio has been assessed as a prognostic marker for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This study aimed to determine the utility of the ROX index and the SpO2/FiO2 ratio as predictors of failure in COVID-19 patients who received HFNC.MethodsThis multicenter study was conducted in seven university-affiliated hospitals in Korea. Data of consecutive hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 10, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. We calculated the ROX index and the SpO2/FiO2 ratio at 1 h, 4 h, and 12 h after HFNC initiation. The primary outcome was HFNC failure defined as the need for subsequent intubation despite HFNC application. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate discrimination of prediction models for HFNC failure.ResultsOf 1,565 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 133 who received HFNC were analyzed. Among them, 63 patients (47.4%) were successfully weaned from HFNC, and 70 (52.6%) were intubated. Among patients with HFNC failure, 32 (45.7%) died. The SpO2/FiO2 ratio at 1 h after HFNC initiation was an important predictor of HFNC failure (AUC 0.762 [0.679-0.846]). The AUCs of SpO2/FiO2 ratio at 4 h and ROX indices at 1 h and 4 h were 0.733 (0.640-0.826), 0.697 (0.597-0.798), and 0.682 (0.583-0.781), respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that the patients aged ≥70 years are 3.4 times more likely to experience HFNC failure than those aged <70 years (HR 3.367 [1.358-8.349], p = 0.009). The SpO2/FiO2 ratio (HR 0.983 [0.972-0.994], p = 0.003) at 1 h was significantly associated with HFNC failure.ConclusionsThe SpO2/FiO2 ratio following HFNC initiation was an acceptable predictor of HFNC failure. The SpO2/FiO2 ratio may be a good prognostic marker for predicting intubation in COVID-9 patients receiving HFNC.
| S-EPMC9098056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) benefit from high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy. However, delays in initiating invasive ventilation after HFNC failure are associated with poorer outcomes. The respiratory oxygenation (ROX) index, combining SpO2/FiO2 and respiratory rate, can predict HFNC failure. This meta-analysis evaluated the optimal ROX index cut-offs in predicting HFNC failure among COVID-19 patients at different measurement timings and clinical settings. Three databases were searched for eligible papers. From each study, we reconstructed the confusion matrices at different cut-offs, fitted linear mixed models to estimate the ROX index distribution function, and derived the area under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve (sAUC) and optimal cut-offs to predict HFNC failure. 24 studies containing 4790 patients were included. Overall sAUC was 0.771 (95% CI: 0.666–0.847) (optimal cut-off: 5.23, sensitivity: 0.732, specificity: 0.690). The cut-off values to achieve 80%, 90% sensitivity, 80%, 90% specificity were 5.70, 6.69, 4.45, 3.37, respectively. We stratified the analysis by ROX measurement time and estimated optimal cut-offs and cut-offs to achieve 80% sensitivity and specificity. For 2–6 h and 6–12 h post-HFNC initiation, we propose the use of 80% specific cut-offs to rule in HFNC failure of < 5.33 and < 3.69, respectively. For 12–24 h post-HFNC initiation, we propose the use of the 80% sensitive cut-off of > 6.07 to rule out HFNC failure. Our analysis confirms the overall utility of the ROX index in risk stratification of COVID-19 patients with AHRF receiving HFNC and provides potentially useful cut-offs for different times from HFNC initiation. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-023-04567-7.
| S-EPMC10441756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is commonly used to prevent reintubation after planned extubation. In clinical practice, there are no appropriate tools to evaluate whether HFNC therapy was successful or failed after planned extubation. In this retrospective observational study, we investigated whether the use of the ROX index was appropriate to differentiate between HFNC success and failure within 72 h after extubation and to develop an integrated model including the ROX index to improve the prediction of HFNC success in patients receiving HFNC therapy after planned extubation. Of 276 patients, 50 patients (18.1%) were reintubated within 72 h of extubation. ROX index values of >8.7 at 2 h, >8.7 at 6 h, and >10.4 at 12 h after HFNC therapy were all meaningful predictors of HFNC success in extubated patients. In addition, the integrated model including the ROX index had a better predictive capability for HFNC success than the ROX index alone. In conclusion, the ROX index at 2, 6, and 12 h could be applied to extubated patients to predict HFNC success after planned extubation. To improve its predictive power, we should also consider an integrated model consisting of the ROX index, sex, body mass index, and the total duration of ventilator care.
| S-EPMC8397019 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6543722 | biostudies-literature