Performance of the ROX index in predicting high flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Critical care (London, England) Vol. 27; no. 1; pp. 1 - 320
• Main Authors: Yau, Chun En, Lee, Dawn Yi Xin, Vasudevan, Adithi, Goh, Ken Junyang, Wong, Evelyn, Ho, Andrew Fu Wah, Lim, Daniel Yan Zheng
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central 21-08-2023; BMC
• Subjects: COVID-19; Critical care; High flow nasal cannula; Intubation; Medical libraries; Meta-analysis; Pandemics; Respiratory failure; ROX index; Sensitivity analysis; Statistical analysis; Success; Systematic review; South America; Europe
• ISSN: 1364-8535; 1364-8535; 1366-609X; 1466-609X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04567-7

Abstract
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 SpO
2
/FiO
2
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.