IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0301013.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

SOFA score performs worse than age for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19

Author

Listed:
  • Raphael A G Sherak
  • Hoomaan Sajjadi
  • Naveed Khimani
  • Benjamin Tolchin
  • Karen Jubanyik
  • R Andrew Taylor
  • Wade Schulz
  • Bobak J Mortazavi
  • Adrian D Haimovich

Abstract

The use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, originally developed to describe disease morbidity, is commonly used to predict in-hospital mortality. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many protocols for crisis standards of care used the SOFA score to select patients to be deprioritized due to a low likelihood of survival. A prior study found that age outperformed the SOFA score for mortality prediction in patients with COVID-19, but was limited to a small cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and did not address whether their findings were unique to patients with COVID-19. Moreover, it is not known how well these measures perform across races. In this retrospective study, we compare the performance of age and SOFA score in predicting in-hospital mortality across two cohorts: a cohort of 2,648 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were admitted to a large academic health system in the northeastern United States over a 4-month period in 2020 and a cohort of 75,601 patients admitted to one of 335 ICUs in the eICU database between 2014 and 2015. We used age and the maximum SOFA score as predictor variables in separate univariate logistic regression models for in-hospital mortality and calculated area under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AU-ROCs) and area under precision-recall curves (AU-PRCs) for each predictor in both cohorts. Among the COVID-19 cohort, age (AU-ROC 0.795, 95% CI 0.762, 0.828) had a significantly better discrimination than SOFA score (AU-ROC 0.679, 95% CI 0.638, 0.721) for mortality prediction. Conversely, age (AU-ROC 0.628 95% CI 0.608, 0.628) underperformed compared to SOFA score (AU-ROC 0.735, 95% CI 0.726, 0.745) in non-COVID-19 ICU patients in the eICU database. There was no difference between Black and White COVID-19 patients in performance of either age or SOFA Score. Our findings bring into question the utility of SOFA score-based resource allocation in COVID-19 crisis standards of care.

Suggested Citation

  • Raphael A G Sherak & Hoomaan Sajjadi & Naveed Khimani & Benjamin Tolchin & Karen Jubanyik & R Andrew Taylor & Wade Schulz & Bobak J Mortazavi & Adrian D Haimovich, 2024. "SOFA score performs worse than age for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-12, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0301013
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301013
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301013&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0301013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0301013. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.