ROX index versus HACOR scale in predicting success and failure of high-flow nasal cannula in the emergency department for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a prospective observational study
Issued Date
2023-12-01
Resource Type
ISSN
18651372
eISSN
18651380
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85146130409
Journal Title
International Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume
16
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
International Journal of Emergency Medicine Vol.16 No.1 (2023)
Suggested Citation
Praphruetkit N., Boonchana N., Monsomboon A., Ruangsomboon O. ROX index versus HACOR scale in predicting success and failure of high-flow nasal cannula in the emergency department for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a prospective observational study. International Journal of Emergency Medicine Vol.16 No.1 (2023). doi:10.1186/s12245-023-00477-1 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/82032
Title
ROX index versus HACOR scale in predicting success and failure of high-flow nasal cannula in the emergency department for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a prospective observational study
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
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.