Comparison Between Physiological Scores SIPF, CURB-65, and APACHE II as Predictors of Prognosis and Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicenter Study, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND: A coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) is associated with catastrophic effects on the world with high morbidity and mortality. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of physiological shock index (SIPF) (shock index and hypoxemia), CURB −65, acute physiology, and chronic health assessment II (APACHE II) as predictors of prognosis and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In Saudi Arabia, a multicenter retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized adult patients confirmed to have COVID-19 pneumonia. Information needed to calculate SIPF, CURB-65, and APACHE II scores were obtained from medical records within 24 hours of admission. RESULTS: The study included 1131 COVID-19 patients who met the inclusion criteria. They were divided into two groups: (A) the ICU group (n=340; 30.1%) and (B) the ward group (n=791; 69.9%). The most common concomitant diseases of patients at initial ICU admission were hypertension (71.5%) and diabetes (62.4%), and most of them were men (63.8%). The overall mortality was 18.7%, and the mortality rate was higher in the ICU group than in the ward group (39.4% vs 9.6%; p < 0.001). The SIPF score showed a significantly higher ability to predict both ICU admission and mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia compared with APACHE II and CURB −65; (AUC 0.89 vs 0.87; p < 0.001) and (AUC 0.89 vs 0.84; p < 0.001) for ICU admission and (AUC 0.90 vs 0.65; p < 0.001) and (AUC 0.90 vs 0.80; p < 0.001) for mortality, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ability of the SIPF score to predict ICU admission and mortality in COVID-19 pneumonia is higher than that of APACHE II and CURB-65. The overall mortality was 18.7%, and the mortality rate was higher in the ICU group than in the ward group (39.4% vs 9.6%; p < 0.001).