No abstract

BACKGROUND:In actuality, it is difficult to obtain an early prognostic stratification for patients with acute respiratory failure treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). We tested whether an early evaluation through a predictive scoring system could identify subjects at risk of in-hospital mortality or NIV failure. METHODS: This was a retrospective study, which included all the subjects with acute respiratory failure who required NIV admitted to an emergency department-high-dependence observation unit between January 2014 and December 2017. The HACOR (heart rate, acidosis [by using pH], consciousness [by using the Glasgow coma scale], oxygenation [by using P aO 2 /F IO 2 ], respiratory rate) score was calculated before the NIV initiation (T0) and after 1 h (T1) and 24 h (T24) of treatment. The primary outcomes were inhospital mortality and NIV failure, defined as the need for invasive ventilation. RESULTS: The study population included 644 subjects, 463 with hypercapnic respiratory failure and an overall in-hospital mortality of 23%. Thirty-six percent of all the subjects had NIV as the "ceiling" treatment. At all the evaluations, nonsurvivors had a higher mean 6 SD HACOR score than did the survivors (T0, 8.2 6 4.9 vs 6.1 6 4.0; T1, 6.6 6 4.8 vs 3.8 6 3.4; T24, 5.3 6 4.5 vs 2.0 6 2.3 [all P < .001]). These data were confirmed after the exclusion of the subjects who underwent NIV as the ceiling treatment (T0, 8.2 6 4.9 vs 6.1 6 4.0 [P 5 .002]; T1, 6.6 6 4.8 vs 3.8 6 3.4; T24, 5.3 6 4.5 vs 2.0 6 3.2 [all P < .001]). At T24, an HACOR score > 5 (Relative Risk [RR] 2.39, 95% CI 1.60-3.56) was associated with an increased mortality rate, independent of age and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. CONCLUSIONS: Among the subjects treated with NIV for acute respiratory failure, the HACOR score seemed to be a useful tool to identify those at risk of in-hospital mortality.

This study compares the effect of the modified early warning score (MEWS) versus a new early warning system (Niguarda MEWS) for detecting instability and criticality in hospital medical departments. A retrospective observational study was conducted in the Internal Medicine ward of Niguarda Ca' Granda Hospital in Milan between November 2013 and October 2014. MEWS and Niguarda-MEWS were gathered using: systolic blood pressure, respiratory frequency, heart rate, temperature, level of consciousness, oxygen saturation, creatinine level, hematocrit level and age. In order to determine if the patient was critical or not the MEWS criticality cut-off value chosen was 3, while in the Niguarda MEWS it was 6. The primary outcome was the correlation between the critical level of the two scores and in-hospital mortality. The secondary endpoint was the correlation between a specific disease and the two scores. In the study, 471 patients were included, using both the MEWS and the Niguarda MEWS score at admittance: 33.4% of patients turned out to be critically ill using the former, 40.98% when using the latter. Therefore, the specificity of scores was 70% for MEWS and 73% for Niguarda MEWS, the sensitivity 58% for MEWS and 63% for Niguarda MEWS, Niguarda MEWS area under the curve (AUC): 0.736, MEWS AUC: 0.670. For the secondary outcome, the new score is higher for genitourinary and respiratory diseases. Niguarda-MEWS could be an optimal tool to detect criticality and instability in order to address the patient to the right level of care.