https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4019-7632
Figures
Abstract
Patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can be treated with a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The use of the respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index, calculated as the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO2)/fractional oxygen (FiO2) to respiratory rate, in the first few hours after HFNC initiation can help identify patients who fail HFNC therapy later. However, few studies have documented the use of the ROX index during the period of HFNC therapy. Therefore, we aimed to demonstrate the diagnostic performance of the ROX index when calculated throughout the HFNC therapy period and to determine the best cut-off point for predicting HFNC failure. We conducted a retrospective study of patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who commenced HFNC at the Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Thailand, between April 1 and August 30, 2021. We calculated the ROX index every 4 h throughout the HFNC therapy period and defined HFNC failure as a subsequent endotracheal tube intubation. The performance of the ROX index was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). We applied the ROX index ≤ 4.88 to predict HFNC failure and obtained a new ROX cut-off point using Youden’s method. In total, 212 patients with COVID-19 treated with HFNC were included in the study. Of these, 81 patients (38.2%) experienced HFNC failure. The ROX index ≤ 4.88 demonstrated a reasonable performance in predicting HFNC failure (AUC, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72–0.83; p<0.001). However, compared with the original cut-off point of ≤ 4.88, the new ROX index cut-off point of ≤ 5.84 delivered optimal performance (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79–0.88; p<0.001), with a significantly better discriminative ability (p = 0.007). In conclusion, a ROX index ≤ 5.84 was found to be optimal for predicting HFNC failure in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS.
Citation: Poopipatpab S, Nuchpramool P, Phairatwet P, Lertwattanachai T, Trongtrakul K (2023) The use of respiratory rate-oxygenation index to predict failure of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: A retrospective study. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0287432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287432
Editor: Vijay Hadda, AIIMS: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, INDIA
Received: February 14, 2023; Accepted: June 6, 2023; Published: June 21, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Poopipatpab et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: We added the dataset as the Supporting information.
Funding: This study was supported by the Navamindradhiraj University Research Fund (grant no. COA 149/64). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been rapidly spreading worldwide as a result of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection [1]. Approximately 20% of patients with COVID-19 progress to critical conditions owing to a more severe form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [2, 3]. In the initial stages of the pandemic, over 70% of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were intubated and usually commenced on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) [4–6].
A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be utilized as early respiratory support for mild-to-moderate COVID-19-associated ARDS [7]. Although it was formerly regarded as an aerosol-generating procedure, several studies have proven that HFNC is safe and feasible and does not result in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmissions [8–13]. According to the most recent research available, the respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index has been commonly used to predict which patients will be unsuccessfully treated with HFNC therapy [14–17]. This index is calculated as the ratio of oxygen saturation (SpO2)/fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) to the respiratory rate (RR). For non-COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemia respiratory failure (AHRF), an ROX index value greater than 4.88 at 12 h after HFNC treatment was associated with a lower risk of the endotracheal tube (ET) intubation [18, 19].
Several studies have also reported the use of the ROX index for predicting HFNC failure in patients with COVID-19 [15–17, 20]. The ROX index was calculated at various time points, such as 2 h, 6 h, and 12 h after HFNC initiation, with different cut-off points for predicting HFNC failure ranging from 2.70 to 5.99 [15–17, 20]. However, in clinical practice, uncertainty remains regarding whether the ROX index can predict HFNC failure in patients with COVID-19 during the HFNC treatment period. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the best ROX cut-off point for determining HFNC failure throughout the HFNC treatment period in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS.
Materials and methods
Study design and participants
This study was conducted retrospectively on patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and cohort ward of the Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand, between April 1 and August 30, 2021. This study was approved by the Vajira Institutional Review Board (COA number 149/2564) on July 19, 2021 and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. The requirement for informed consent was waived owing to minimal risk, and the data were extracted and analyzed anonymously.
Data were obtained from the medical records of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19-associated ARDS who had received HFNC therapy. The inclusion criteria comprised patients aged ≥ 18 years who had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 using a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, bilateral infiltration on chest radiography, and underwent HFNC therapy during hospitalization. We excluded patients in whom IMV was initiated before commencing HFNC therapy, those who signed a do-not-resuscitate advance medical directive, and those who were transferred to another hospital during the HFNC therapy.
HFNC therapy was initiated using the AIRVO-2 Nasal High Flow System (Fisher and Paykel Healthcare Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand), with an initial flow of 40–60 L/min, the temperature of 34°C-37°C, and FiO2 of 60%. The physician titrated FiO2 to a target SpO2 of more than 92% and adjusted the flow rate according to the patient’s comfort or maximum tolerance.
Patients who were unable to maintain an SpO2 > 88% when the FiO2 was maximum or did not achieve an RR decrease to < 35 breaths/min were transferred to the ICU for close monitoring, provided that the patient was admitted to the cohort ward. Patients deemed to have HFNC treatment failure received intubation at the discretion of the attending physician. Generally, the indications for ET intubation are respiratory distress, severe metabolic acidosis, altered mental status, and cardiac arrest.
Data collection and definitions
We collected data on patient demographics, including age, sex, and body mass index as well as pre-existing comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. During the initial phase of HFNC therapy, we also collected data on patients’ vital signs, including body temperature, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, RR, SpO2, SpO2/FiO2, and severity score, as measured by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and basic laboratory investigations, including complete blood count, serum creatinine, D-dimer, and C-reactive protein levels. Additionally, we extracted the SpO2, FiO2, and RR every 4 h during HFNC therapy from the initiation to the end of HFNC treatment. We calculated and utilized all of the ROX index values during the entire HFNC treatment period to determine HFNC failure. The reason for HFNC termination can be either HFNC success or failure. For a patient who required ET intubation with an IMV, we recorded this case as HFNC failure. The total number of HFNC days was defined as the duration from the start of HFNC therapy until the end of HFNC treatment. Other outcomes were also evaluated, including ICU length of stay (ICU-LOS), hospital length of stay (Hosp-LOS), 28-day mortality rate, and hospital mortality rate.
Sample size
The sample sizes were estimated parametrically based on the variance of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and its marginal errors with a 95% confidence level for binormal assumption using the Hanley and McNeil formula [21]. Given a significance level of 0.05, and a power of the test at 80%, at least 211 cases were required for the study with an AUC of 0.74 and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.64–0.84 [18].
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. We used the Mann–Whitney U test to compare continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. All of the ROX index values during the period of HFNC therapy were used in our study. We assessed the performance of the ROX index in determining HFNC failure using receiver operating characteristic curves. We then calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to demonstrate how the ROX index could determine HFNC failure. We defined the ROX index of ≤ 4.88 as a reference cut-off point in determining HFNC failure across the period of HFNC therapy, according to the study by Roca et al. (2019) [19]. Additionally, we obtained the best ROX index cut-off point from our data using the Youden index (sensitivity + specificity -1) and compared its diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and AUC) with the previous cut-off point of 4.88 [19]. Therefore, a new purpose cut-off point could be performed equally at each 4 hourly time-point across the period of HFNC therapy. Furthermore, we compared the diagnostic performance of the ROX index with that of other respiratory variables, including RR, SpO2, and SpO2/FiO2. A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA, version 16.0 (STATA Inc., College Station, TX, USA).
Results
Patient baseline characteristics
During the study period, 311 COVID-19 patients with AHRF who were treated with HFNC were admitted to our ICU and cohort wards. Ninety-nine patients were excluded for the following reasons: 66 patients with a do-not-resuscitate advance directive, 30 patients with ET intubation before using HFNC, and 3 patients who were transferred to other hospitals during the HFNC therapy (Fig 1). Accordingly, we gathered information from 212 patients; 81 of these patients (38.2%) experienced HFNC failure. We found that most patients with HFNC failure were intubated within 2 days at a rate of 59.3% (48/81 cases), and almost 81.4% of patients (66/81 cases) received intubation within 7 days after the initiation of HFNC treatment (S1 Fig and S1 Table). None of the patients included in this study received noninvasive ventilation therapy in accordance with the first updated guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign on the management of critically ill adults with COVID-19 [13].
COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula.
When comparing baseline characteristics between patients with HFNC failure and those with HFNC success, there were no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, pre-existing comorbidities, number of days from symptoms to HFNC initiation, vital signs, and laboratory investigations (Table 1). There were several exceptions, including higher RR, lower SpO2, lower SpO2/FiO2, and lower platelet count in the HFNC failure group than in the HFNC success group (Table 1).
Values of the ROX index during the study period
Fig 2 displays the daily ROX index comparison between patients in the HFNC failure and success groups in a longitudinal timeframe. Notably, we found that the ROX index values in the HFNC failure group for the initial 7 days ranged between 3.64 and 5.76. However, the ROX index values in the HFNC success group ranged from 7.92 to 9.20 (S1 Table).
HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula; ROX, respiratory rate-oxygenation.
Accordingly, during the initial 6 days, the ROX index in the HFNC failure group was significantly lower than that in the HFNC success group (all p<0.05; S1 Table). However, the ROX index did not differ significantly on day-7 (p = 0.09). This might be explained by only having one patient intubated on day-7.
Outcomes between HFNC failure and success
The duration of HFNC use was shorter among patients with HFNC failure than among those with HFNC success (2 [IQR, 2–6] days vs. 5 [IQR, 3–7] days, p<0.001) (Table 1). In contrast, we found significantly longer ICU-LOS and Hosp-LOS in the HFNC failure group than in the HFNC success group, which were 14 (IQR, 10–22) days vs. 6 (IQR, 5–10) days, p<0.001 and 24 (IQR, 16–32) days vs. 13 (IQR, 9–17) days, p<0.001, respectively (Table 1). Furthermore, we also found significantly greater 28-day mortality and hospital mortality in the HFNC failure group than in the HFNC success group (43.2% vs. 3.8%, p<0.001 and 58.0% vs. 4.6%, p<0.001, respectively; Table 1).
Accuracy of the ROX index in predicting HFNC failure
We found a strong diagnostic performance of the ROX index in its ability to predict HFNC failure, with an AUC of 0.89 and 95% CI of 0.85–0.93 (Fig 3). When an ROX index cut-off point of ≤ 4.88 was used to identify HFNC failure, the index still retained good discrimination ability (AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72–0.83; p<0.001; Table 2 and S2 Fig). Similarly, we found a more suitable ROX cut-off point using the Youden index at ≤ 5.84 in determining HFNC failure (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79–0.88; p<0.001; Table 2 and S2 Fig). There was a significantly better discriminating ability at a cut-off point of 5.84 vs. 4.88, p = 0.007 (S2 Fig). Other diagnostic performance indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, are shown in Table 2. Indeed, greater sensitivity was found at the new cut-off point (80.2% vs. 59.3%) than at the ROX cut-off point of 4.88. Hence, when applying an ROX index of ≤ 5.84 rather than 4.88, more cases would be correctly classified as HFNC failure with an earlier time determination. At a higher threshold, the ROX index could increase the level of confidence in decision-making when it comes to allocating patients, be it more intensive monitoring or more aggressive measures to be undertaken.
HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula; ROX, respiratory rate-oxygenation; RR, respiratory rate.
Comparing the ROX index with other variables in predicting HFNC failure
The ROX index and other respiratory parameters, including RR, SpO2, and SpO2/FiO2 ratio every 4 h, are summarized in S1 Table. In discriminating HFNC failure from HFNC success in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, the ROX index performed significantly better than the other parameters, including the SpO2/FiO2 ratio, FiO2, RR, and SpO2, with AUC values of 0.89 vs. 0.86, 0.84, 0.78, and 0.70, respectively, with an overall p<0.001 (Fig 3). There were also significantly better AUC values from the ROX index than from the other parameters after pairwise comparison (all p<0.05) (Table 3).
Discussion
HFNC therapy is a useful tool for treating patients with mild-to-moderate ARDS [16, 22]. Several patients were safe from the need for ET intubation and demonstrated an improved survival rate [23]. The original study by Roca et al. demonstrated the diagnostic performance of the ROX index in AHRF patients with non-COVID-19 pneumonia [18]. The ROX index of ≤ 4.88 at 12 h after the initiation of HFNC could accurately identify patients with HFNC failure (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64–0.84) [18]. Additionally, the same author’s group reported a suitable use of the ROX index at 2 h, 6 h, and 12 h after initiation of HFNC treatment, with levels of < 2.85, <3.47, and < 3.85, respectively, in terms of HFNC failure prediction [19]. The AUCs in the study ranged from 0.68 to 0.76 [19].
For COVID-19-associated ARDS, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines suggest using HFNC over conventional oxygen therapy or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in mild-to-moderate cases [13]. Nonetheless, close monitoring and more aggressive management with ET intubation with IMV support are recommended when worsening respiratory symptoms occur [13]. However, the decision of whether or not patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS will fail from HFNC treatment remains challenging, as HFNC may cause a delay in ET intubation and increase the mortality rate. The ROX index may be an option that could be utilized as a prognostic marker to predict HFNC failure.
We confirmed that the use of the ROX index provided robust evidence to support triaging of HFNC failure in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. In our data, 81 of 212 patients experienced HFNC failure (38.2%) during the study period of HFNC therapy. The AUC of the ROX index was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85–0.93) in discriminating patients with HFNC failure from those with HFNC success during the study period of HFNC therapy (22 days in total). Although the ROX cut-off point was from the study where AHRF patients were not infected with COVID-19, the value of the ROX index of ≤ 4.88 could acceptably discriminate our COVID-19 patients with HFNC failure (AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72–0.83). Indeed, we found that the ROX index cut-off value of ≤ 5.84 was more optimum (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79–0.88) and significantly better than that of 4.88 (p = 0.007).
Prior studies have reported the use of the ROX index to identify patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who showed the failure of HFNC therapy [14, 16, 17, 24, 25]. The values of the ROX index in these studies were measured at several specific time points within the first 24 h after the initiation of HFNC treatment [16, 17, 24, 25]. A wide range of ROX cut-off points and AUC have also been reported for predicting HFNC failure. For example, the ROX index cut-off point < 4.94 measured at 2 to 6 h, with an AUC of 0.71 [16]; the ROX index < 5.40 measured within the first 4 h, with an AUC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60–0.91) [24]; the ROX index < 5.99 measured at 12 h, with an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69–0.89) [17]; and the ROX index < 8.54 measured at 4 h, with an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI, 60–0.80) [25]. Moreover, a meta-analysis of patients with COVID-19 showed that a cut-off value of the ROX index above 5.00 provided more discriminative accuracy than that at 5.00 or below in predicting HFNC failure (p = 0.002) [26].
The above-mentioned evidence supports that an ROX cut-off point of < 5.84 is more suitable for patients with COVID-19 than an ROX cut-off point of < 4.88 in terms of HFNC failure detection. In addition, patients with COVID-19 may experience happy hypoxia [27]. A lower RR in AHRF patients with COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients or a lower RR following HFNC therapy may be the reasons for the lowering of the denominator, RR, for the ROX index calculation.
Furthermore, recent studies have revealed that other variables such as SpO2/FiO2 [25] or RR [28] might be a better option for predicting HFNC failure than the use of the ROX index. However, we found that the ROX index had the most discriminative ability to predict HFNC failure compared with other respiratory parameters during the study period of HFNC treatment.
This study revealed that the ROX index at a value of ≤ 5.84 could be utilized to predict HFNC failure throughout the HFNC therapy period in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. However, the conventional value of the ROX index cut-off point of ≤ 4.88 might be less justified for triggering more aggressive management. Additionally, we confirmed that the ROX index was more accurate than other respiratory parameters.
Commonly, HFNC is continued long enough until patients’ signs and symptoms of respiratory failure improve or until they clinically worsen, requiring more aggressive intervention. The decision for aggressive management based on the use of a single-initial ROX index after HFNC therapy in determining HFNC failure might not be valid in daily clinical practice, especially in patients who underwent a long period of HFNC therapy. A single-initial value of the ROX index may promote unnecessary proactive management in some patients. A repeated evaluation of the ROX index routinely every 4–6 h during the period of HFNC therapy as well as vital sign assessment might be an option for more appropriate allocation of patients at high risk of HFNC failure than of those with low risk.
However, this study had some limitations. First, this study was performed retrospectively and was reported from a single center. Therefore, further multicenter prospective studies are required to prove the benefit of an ROX index of ≤ 5.84 in triaging HFNC failure. Second, this study analyzed the overall outcome of ROX index values in determining HFNC failure using conventional AUC estimation. AUC summarizes the capacity of the test to discriminate disease from non-disease across all possible levels of positivity into a single statistic. One might argue that using the conventional AUC estimation for a longitudinal measurement or time-dependent variable, that is, the ROX index value every 4 h during the HFNC therapy period, might lead to a statistical fault. Unfortunately, until recently, there has been a paucity of suitable methods or well-recognized statistics to handle repeated measures of time-dependent variables [29]. Third, patients with HFNC failure might have experienced respiratory distress rather than COVID-19 pneumonia progression, particularly those with late HFNC failure. However, almost 80% of our patients were intubated within 7 days after the initiation of HFNC therapy, remaining within the peak of inflammation or cytokine storm phase of COVID-19-associated ARDS. Finally, a high rate of intubation (38.2%) as well as high 28-day mortality and hospital mortality rates (18.9% and 25.0%, respectively) in our setting might indicate suboptimal monitoring and delayed intubation; however, this could have been due to patients having to be admitted to cohort wards instead of the ICU during the study period. Moreover, several studies have reported rates of HFNC failure that are similar to that in our study, ranging from 38.1% to 66.1% in patients admitted to the ICU [20, 24, 28]. Additionally, Chandel et al. recently conducted a retrospective analysis in a mixed-population of ICU and non-ICU COVID-19 patients and reported results similar to ours (ICU admission, intubation, mortality, and mortality with HFNC failure rates of 66.7%, 39.7%, 18.0%, and 45.4%, respectively) [30].
Conclusion
In patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, the use of the ROX index of ≤ 5.84 during the period of HFNC therapy was the optimal cut-off point for determining those with HFNC failure. In addition, this new cut-off point of 5.84 was significantly better than the original value of 4.88. Additionally, we found that the ROX index was more accurate in revealing the HFNC failure than other respiratory variables.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Number of daily HFNC failure in patients with COVID-19 associated ARDS.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287432.s001
(TIFF)
S2 Fig. Comparison AUC of ROX index cut-off point value 4.88 vs 5.84.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287432.s002
(TIFF)
S1 Table. Respiratory parameters within 7 days after the initiation of HFNC treatment.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287432.s003
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Miss Unyaparch Rungsidhavaspong and Miss Panithi Pongraweewan for data gathering and Mr. Anucha Kamsom for his assistance with statistical analysis. We sincerely thank Jonathan Stream (Ba.), an English Consultant, for English proofreading assistance.
References
- 1. Gomes C. Report of the WHO-China joint mission on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences. 2020;2(3).
- 2. Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):507–13. pmid:32007143
- 3. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J, et al. Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1061–9. pmid:32031570
- 4. Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Xia J, Liu H, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(5):475–81. pmid:32105632
- 5. Bhatraju PK, Ghassemieh BJ, Nichols M, Kim R, Jerome KR, Nalla AK, et al. Covid-19 in Critically Ill Patients in the Seattle Region—Case Series. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):2012–22. pmid:32227758
- 6. Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, Antonelli M, Cabrini L, Castelli A, et al. Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes of 1591 Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy. Jama. 2020;323(16):1574–81. pmid:32250385
- 7. Grieco DL, Maggiore SM, Roca O, Spinelli E, Patel BK, Thille AW, et al. Non-invasive ventilatory support and high-flow nasal oxygen as first-line treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(8):851–66. pmid:34232336
- 8. Odor PM, Neun M, Bampoe S, Clark S, Heaton D, Hoogenboom EM, et al. Anaesthesia and COVID-19: infection control. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(1):16–24. pmid:32307115
- 9. Sommerstein R, Fux CA, Vuichard-Gysin D, Abbas M, Marschall J, Balmelli C, et al. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, the rational use of masks, and protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020;9(1):100. pmid:32631450
- 10. Kotoda M, Hishiyama S, Mitsui K, Tanikawa T, Morikawa S, Takamino A, et al. Assessment of the potential for pathogen dispersal during high-flow nasal therapy. J Hosp Infect. 2020;104(4):534–7. pmid:31759093
- 11. Leasa D, Cameron P, Honarmand K, Mele T, Bosma KJ. Knowledge translation tools to guide care of non-intubated patients with acute respiratory illness during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):22. pmid:33419456
- 12. Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Pessoa-Silva CL, Conly J. Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections to healthcare workers: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35797. pmid:22563403
- 13. Alhazzani W, Møller MH, Arabi YM, Loeb M, Gong MN, Fan E, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(5):854–87. pmid:32222812
- 14. Mellado-Artigas R, Mujica LE, Ruiz ML, Ferreyro BL, Angriman F, Arruti E, et al. Predictors of failure with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure: a multicenter observational study. J Intensive Care. 2021;9(1):23. pmid:33673863
- 15. Myers LC, Mark D, Ley B, Guarnieri M, Hofmeister M, Paulson S, et al. Validation of Respiratory Rate-Oxygenation Index in Patients With COVID-19-Related Respiratory Failure. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(7):e638–e42. pmid:35120044
- 16. Panadero C, Abad-Fernández A, Rio-Ramirez MT, Acosta Gutierrez CM, Calderon-Alcala M, Lopez-Riolobos C, et al. High-flow nasal cannula for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Multidiscip Respir Med. 2020;15(1):693. pmid:32983456
- 17. Vega ML, Dongilli R, Olaizola G, Colaianni N, Sayat MC, Pisani L, et al. COVID-19 Pneumonia and ROX index: Time to set a new threshold for patients admitted outside the ICU. Pulmonology. 2022;28(1):13–7. pmid:34049831
- 18. Roca O, Messika J, Caralt B, García-de-Acilu M, Sztrymf B, Ricard JD, et al. Predicting success of high-flow nasal cannula in pneumonia patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: The utility of the ROX index. J Crit Care. 2016;35:200–5. pmid:27481760
- 19. Roca O, Caralt B, Messika J, Samper M, Sztrymf B, Hernández G, et al. An Index Combining Respiratory Rate and Oxygenation to Predict Outcome of Nasal High-Flow Therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(11):1368–76. pmid:30576221
- 20. Hu M, Zhou Q, Zheng R, Li X, Ling J, Chen Y, et al. Application of high-flow nasal cannula in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med. 2020;20(1):324. pmid:33357219
- 21. Hajian-Tilaki K. Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform. 2014;48:193–204. pmid:24582925
- 22. Ricard J-D, Roca O, Lemiale V, Corley A, Braunlich J, Jones P, et al. Use of nasal high flow oxygen during acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Medicine. 2020;46(12):2238–47. pmid:32901374
- 23. Frat J-P, Thille AW, Mercat A, Girault C, Ragot S, Perbet S, et al. High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372(23):2185–96. pmid:25981908
- 24. Zucman N, Mullaert J, Roux D, Roca O, Ricard JD. Prediction of outcome of nasal high flow use during COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(10):1924–6. pmid:32671470
- 25. Kim JH, Baek AR, Lee SI, Kim WY, Na YS, Lee BY, et al. ROX index and SpO2/FiO2 ratio for predicting high-flow nasal cannula failure in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients: A multicenter retrospective study. PLoS One. 2022;17(5):e0268431. pmid:35551328
- 26. Prakash J, Bhattacharya PK, Yadav AK, Kumar A, Tudu LC, Prasad K. ROX index as a good predictor of high flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care. 2021;66:102–8. pmid:34507079
- 27. Dhont S, Derom E, Van Braeckel E, Depuydt P, Lambrecht BN. The pathophysiology of ‘happy’ hypoxemia in COVID-19. Respiratory Research. 2020;21(1):198. pmid:32723327
- 28. Blez D, Soulier A, Bonnet F, Gayat E, Garnier M. Monitoring of high-flow nasal cannula for SARS-CoV-2 severe pneumonia: less is more, better look at respiratory rate. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(11):2094–5. pmid:32737522
- 29. Liu H, Wu T. Estimating the Area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve For Repeated Measures Design. Journal of Statistical Software. 2003;8(12):1–18.
- 30. Chandel A, Patolia S, Brown AW, Collins AC, Sahjwani D, Khangoora V, et al. High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in COVID-19: Using the ROX Index to Predict Success. Respir Care. 2021;66(6):909–19. pmid:33328179