Back

Overt and occult hypoxemia in patients hospitalized with novel coronavirus disease 2019

Gadrey, S. M.; Mohanty, P.; Haughey, S. P.; Jacobsen, B. A.; Dubester, K. J.; Webb, K. M.; Kowalski, R. L.; Dreicer, J. J.; Andris, R. T.; Clark, M. T.; Moore, C. C.; Holder, A.; Kamaleswaran, R.; Ratcliffe, S. J.; Moorman, J. R.

2022-06-16 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2022.06.14.22276166 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundProgressive hypoxemia is the predominant mode of deterioration in COVID-19. Among hypoxemia measures, the ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio) has optimal construct validity but poor availability because it requires arterial blood sampling. Pulse oximetry reports oxygenation continuously, but occult hypoxemia can occur in Black patients because the technique is affected by skin color. Oxygen dissociation curves allow non-invasive estimation of P/F ratios (ePFR) but this approach remains unproven. Research QuestionCan ePFRs measure overt and occult hypoxemia? Study Design and methodsWe retrospectively studied COVID-19 hospital encounters (n=5319) at two academic centers (University of Virginia [UVA] and Emory University). We measured primary outcomes (death or ICU transfer within 24 hours), ePFR, conventional hypoxemia measures, baseline predictors (age, sex, race, comorbidity), and acute predictors (National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and Sepsis-3). We updated predictors every 15 minutes. We assessed predictive validity using adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROC). We quantified disparities (Black vs non-Black) in empirical cumulative distributions using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) two-sample test. ResultsOvert hypoxemia (low ePFR) predicted bad outcomes (AOR for a 100-point ePFR drop: 2.7 [UVA]; 1.7 [Emory]; p<0.01) with better discrimination (AUROC: 0.76 [UVA]; 0.71 [Emory]) than NEWS (AUROC: 0.70 [UVA]; 0.70 [Emory]) or Sepsis-3 (AUROC: 0.68 [UVA]; 0.65 [Emory]). We found racial differences consistent with occult hypoxemia. Black patients had better apparent oxygenation (K-S distance: 0.17 [both sites]; p<0.01) but, for comparable ePFRs, worse outcomes than other patients (AOR: 2.2 [UVA]; 1.2 [Emory], p<0.01). InterpretationThe ePFR was a valid measure of overt hypoxemia. In COVID-19, it may outperform multi-organ dysfunction models like NEWS and Sepsis-3. By accounting for biased oximetry as well as clinicians real-time responses to it (supplemental oxygen adjustment), ePFRs may enable statistical modelling of racial disparities in outcomes attributable to occult hypoxemia.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.7%
2
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.7%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.1%
7
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
8
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
9
Pediatric Research
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
10
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
13
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
14
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
15
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
17
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
20
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
21
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
25
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
27
Physiological Reports
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
28
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%