Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Association between Age-Adjusted Endothelial Activation and Stress Index and Intensive Care Unit Mortality in Patients with Severe COVID-19

Article information

Tuberc Respir Dis. 2024;87(4):524-531
Publication date (electronic) : 2024 July 24
doi : https://doi.org/10.4046/trd.2024.0081
Jong Hwan Jeong, M.D.1,*orcid_icon, Manbong Heo, M.D.1,*orcid_icon, Sunghoon Park, M.D., Ph.D.2, Su Hwan Lee, M.D., Ph.D.3, Onyu Park, B.N.4, Taehwa Kim, M.D., Ph.D.5,6, Hye Ju Yeo, M.D., Ph.D.5,6, Jin Ho Jang, M.D.5,6, Woo Hyun Cho, M.D., Ph.D.5,6, Jung-Wan Yoo, M.D., Ph.D.,1orcid_icon, on behalf of the Korean Intensive Care Study Group
1Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Republic of Korea
2Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Republic of Korea
3Division of Pulmonology and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4BioMedical Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea
5Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Transplant Research Center, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea
6Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea
Address for correspondence Jung-Wan Yoo, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, 79 Gangnam-ro, Jinju 52727, Republic of Korea Phone 82-55-750-9763 E-mail chareok@gmail.com
*These authors contributed equally to the manuscript as first author.
Received 2024 May 31; Revised 2024 June 27; Accepted 2024 July 21.

Abstract

Background

Endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX) reflects endothelial dysfunction or damage. Because endothelial dysfunction is one of the key mechanisms, a few studies have shown the clinical usefulness of original and age-adjusted EASIX (age-EASIX) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of age-EASIX in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 in South Korea.

Methods

Secondary analysis was performed using clinical data retrospectively collected from 22 nationwide hospitals in South Korea between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2021. Patients were at least 19 years old and admitted to the ICU for severe COVID-19, demanding at least high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy. EASIX [lactate dehydrogenase (U/L)×creatinine (mg/dL)/platelet count (109 cells/L)] and age-EASIX (EASIX×age) were calculated and log2-transformed.

Results

The mean age of 908 critically ill patients with COVID-19 was 67.4 years with 59.7% male sex. The mean log2 age-EASIX was 7.38±1.45. Non-survivors (n=222, 24.4%) in the ICU had a significantly higher log2 age-EASIX than of survivors (8.2±1.52 vs. 7.1±1.32, p<0.001). log2 age-EASIX was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.541; 95% confidence interval, 1.322 to 1.796; p<0.001) and had a better area under the receiver operating characteristic curve than of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in predicting ICU mortality (0.730 vs. 0.660, p=0.001).

Conclusion

Age-EASIX is significantly associated with ICU mortality and has better discriminatory ability than the SOFA score in predicting ICU mortality.

Keywords: COVID-19; Age; Endothelial Activation and Stress Index; Intensive Care Unit; Mortality

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has imposed a huge health burden worldwide and continues with the emergence of new variants [1-5]. The clinical spectrum of respiratory illness in COVID-19 ranges from a mild upper respiratory infection to a critically ill condition like severe pneumonia [6,7]. Critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) have high multiorgan dysfunction and worse outcomes, including high mortality, despite intensive care [8-12]. Multiple and complex mechanisms have been involved in causing critically ill conditions after the SARS-CoV-2 infection [13,14]. Among them, vascular endothelial dysfunction caused by the viral infection itself or an immune reaction has been associated with a severe course and complications due to COVID-19 [15-22]. Therefore, developing or repurposing an index to assess endothelial dysfunction in clinical practice is essential to predicting clinical course and determining the appropriate management in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX) was developed to evaluate endothelial dysfunction and predict mortality in patients with acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) after allogenic stem cell transplantation, and EASIX was significantly associated with high mortality [23-26]. EASIX has demonstrated clinical utility in other hematologic diseases [27,28], including sepsis prediction and outcome in allogenic stem cell transplantation [29,30]. Several studies reported that EASIX was also associated with the severity and outcome of COVID-19 [31,32]. Regarding old age as not only an associated risk factor for endothelial dysfunction [33,34] but also a major determinant for worse outcome in COVID-19 [8-11], age-adjusted EASIX (age-EASIX) also developed and was associated with death within 28 days in hospitalized patients [35]. However, the validation of the clinical utility of age-EASIX for ICU outcomes remains to be fully elucidated in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of age-EASIX in predicting ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU in South Korea.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients

We performed a secondary analysis of the clinical data of patients with COVID-19 from a nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort collected from 22 tertiaryor university-affiliated hospitals between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2021. The patient was at least 19 years old, and the polymerase chain reaction test for COVID-19 was positive. The analysis included critically ill patients in the ICU requiring high-flow oxygen therapy.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Gyeong Sang National University Hospital (IRB number 2021-012-020) and the local committees of all other participating centers. Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.

2. Data collection and calculation of EASIX and age-adjusted EASIX

Baseline characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, clinical frailty scale, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), clinical features, and laboratory and ventilatory parameters were collected. Clinical outcomes, such as ICU duration and mortality, were also collected.

3. Calculation of EASIX and age-EASIX

EASIX was calculated with the below equation originally suggested by Luft et al. [23] “EASIX= lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; U/L)×creatinine (mg/dL)/platelet count (109 cells/L).”

Age-EASIX was calculated with the following formula suggested by Perez-Garcia et al. [35] “age-EASIX=age (years)×LDH (U/L)×creatinine (mg/dL)/platelet count (109 cells/L).”

Both values were log2-transformed for analysis.

4. Statistical analysis

Non-continuous variables were expressed as numbers (%) and compared using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, whereas continuous variables were expressed as mean±standard deviation and compared using the Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U test. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with ICU mortality and to clarify whether age-EASIX was significant. A cut-off value to distinguish between low and high age-EASIX values was defined according to their sensitivity and specificity using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the Youden method [36]. The Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare the ICU mortality between the low and high age-EASIX groups. All data were analyzed using the SPSS software version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and MedCalc for Windows version 15.22.4 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). The statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

1. Baseline characteristics of patients

During the study period, a total of 1,114 patients with COVID-19 who received at least high-flow oxygen therapy were enrolled. Among them, 908 patients were eligible for EASIX calculation, and their clinical data were analyzed. During the ICU stay (mean 21.8±23.2 days), 222 patients (24.4%) died. The baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1. Non-survivors were significantly older and had more comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney and neurological disease, and solid tumors, than non-survivors. Non-survivors had a significantly higher SOFA score than in survivors. Regarding treatment, the survivors received significantly more remdesivir, while other medications did not differ. Non-survivors received more renal replacement therapy and mechanical ventilation. Extracorporeal membrane oxygen was used more often as rescue therapy in survivors.

Comparison of baseline characteristics of intensive care unit survivors and non-survivors

2. Comparison of laboratory parameters and log2 EASIX and log2 age-EASIX values

Table 2 compares laboratory parameters, log2 EASIX, and log2 age-EASIX. Platelet count was significantly lower in non-survivors, and conversely, creatinine and LDH were significantly higher in non-survivors than those of survivors. The mean log2 EASIX and log2 age-EASIX values were 1.34±1.34 and 7.38±1.45, respectively. Non-survivors had significantly higher log2 EASIX and log2 age-EASIX than those of survivors (log2 EASIX, 2.05±1.47 vs. 1.11±1.21, p<0.001; and log2 age-EASIX, 8.2±1.52 vs. 7.1±1.32, p<0.001).

Comparison of laboratory parameters and value of EASIX and age-EASIX

3. Factors associated with ICU mortality

Table 3 shows univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses performed to evaluate associated factors in ICU mortality. The presence of comorbidities (odds ratio [OR], 1.551; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.021 to 2.357; p=0.040), SOFA score (OR, 1.069; 95% CI, 1.009 to 1.133; p=0.023), and log2 age-EASIX (OR, 1.564; 95% CI, 1.367 to 1.789; p<0.001) were significantly associated with the ICU mortality.

Univariate and multivariate analyses for factors associated with intensive care unit mortality

4. Comparison of ROCs between SOFA, log2 EASIX, and log2 age-EASIX

ROC curve analysis was conducted to compare the log2 EASIX, SOFA score, and log2 age-EASIX for predicting ICU mortality (Figure 1). The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of log2 age-EASIX to discriminate ICU mortality was 0.730 (95% CI, 0.700 to 0.759; p<0.001), with 83.3% sensitivity and 51.3% specificity. The AUROCs for SOFA and log2 EASIX were 0.660 (95% CI, 0.629 to 0.691; p<0.001) and 0.706 (95% CI, 0.675 to 0.736; p<0.001), respectively. AUROC of log2 age-EASIX was significantly higher than that of both SOFA and log2 EASIX for predicting ICU mortality (log2 age-EASIX vs. SOFA score, p=0.0016; and log2 age-EASIX vs. log2 EASIX, p<0.001). We divided the patients into two groups using a 7.00 cut-off value of log2 age-EASIX. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that patients with a log2 age-EASIX ≥7 had a lower survival rate than patients with a log2 age-EASIX <7.00 (p<0.001) (Figure 2).

Fig. 1.

Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curve. *p<0.001. †p=0.0411. ‡p=0.0016. EASIX: endothelial activation and stress index; SOFA: sequential organ failure assessment; AUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CI: confidence interval.

Fig. 2.

Kaplan Meier survival curve according to log2 age-endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX).

Discussion

Our study showed that age-EASIX was significantly associated with ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU requiring at least high-flow oxygen therapy, and its discrimination performance in predicting ICU mortality was better than that of the EASIX and SOFA scores in South Korea.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a huge health burden worldwide [3,4]. Critically ill patients with COVID-19, such as those with a high oxygen demand, had high mortality rates [8-12]. The pathogenesis of COVID-19 following SARS-CoV-2 invasion into the respiratory tract has been recognized as a multiple and complex process that has played a role in multiple organ dysfunction [13,14]. Vascular endothelial inflammation and dysfunction have been observed in the SARS-CoV-2 infection [15-17,19,37]. SARS-CoV-2 infection-associated endothelial dysfunction has been reported as an important mechanism resulting in multiple organ damage in patients with COVID-19 [18,20-22,38-40]. Therefore, developing or repurposing an index to assess endothelial dysfunction or damage in clinical practice is crucial to predicting clinical course and determining or moving forward with appropriate management in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

EASIX, which was initially described by Luft et al. [23,24,26] and calculated using LDH, creatinine, and platelet levels developed for the purpose of assessing endothelial dysfunction in patients with allogeneic stem cell transplantation and acute GVHD after allogeneic stem cell transplantation, was significantly associated with high mortality. EASIX has also been shown to be clinical useful to evaluate prognosis in other hematologic diseases and sepsis prediction and outcome in allogeneic stem cell transplantation [27-29].

Several studies have been conducted on EASIX in patients with COVID-19 [31,32]. Kalicinska et al. [31], for the first time, reported a retrospective analysis of the association between the EASIX score and clinical outcomes in 523 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with or without coexisting hematological cancer. Their study revealed that EASIX was a strong predictor of ICU admission, in-hospital mortality, and the occurrence of acute renal failure in both hematological and non-hematological patients with COVID-19 [31]. Zinczuk et al. [32], in their retrospective analysis of the medical data of 370 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, reported that non-survivors had a significantly higher log2 EASIX value than survivors (6.66 vs. 2.94, p<0.0010). They showed that the AUC for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 was 0.646 (95% CI, 0.589 to 0.702) [32].

Old age has been consistently reported as a significant risk factor associated with high mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 [8-11]. Aging is also known to be an associated factor for endothelial dysfunction, which reflects high cardiovascular complications in the general population [33,34]. Considering the importance of age in patients with COVID-19, Perez-Garcia et al. [35] adjusted EASIX to age (EASIX multiple by age) and transformed log2 for analysis. In their retrospective study involving patients with COVID-19 from derivation (n=1,200 patients) and validation cohorts (n=1,830 patients), both log2-EASIX and log2-aEASIX-COVID were independently associated with an increased risk of death in both cohorts (p<0.001). Log2-aEASIX-COVID showed good predictive performance for 28-day mortality both in the derivation cohort (AUROC=0.827) and validation cohort (AUROC=0.820), with better predictive performance for 28-day mortality than log2-EASIX (p<0.001) [35]. This study suggests that age adjustment for EASIX is necessary to achieve good performance in predicting outcomes in COVID-19 patients. EASIX, or age-adjusted EASIX, has yet to be validated, and its clinical utility in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU in South Korea remains to be elucidated. Our findings from a retrospective, nationwide, multicenter cohort study in South Korea were similar to those of previous studies. Our study found that age-EASIX in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors. In the multiple variable analysis, age-EASIX was associated with increased ICU mortality and performed better in predicting ICU mortality than EASIX and SOFA scores. The SOFA score has been widely used in intensive care settings to assess organ dysfunction and predict mortality in critically ill patients before COVID-19 pandemic [41]. Regarding, however, its role in predicting mortality in severe COVID-19 patients, it is not robustly established and remains inconclusive. While the SOFA score includes several indicators of organ failure, it does not account for age, which is a significant risk factor in severe COVID-19 cases. A couple of studies suggest that the SOFA score have the limit to predict mortality compared to age and raise a question about its utility compared to age [42,43]. The EASIX score, developed in the hematologic field, reflects endothelial dysfunction/damage, which is a key mechanism in COVID-19. It may provide earlier insights into endothelial dysfunction/damage compared to the SOFA score. Therefore, combining age with the EASIX score might have a potential to offer a more accurate of mortality in severe COVID-19 patients compared to relying solely on SOFA score.

Our study has several limitations. First, the clinical data of patients were collected retrospectively from a nationwide multicenter study in South Korea, and selection bias cannot be ruled out. Second, most of our patients were in the early pandemic period, and the clinical impact of age-EASIX on patients in the late variant pandemic in South Korea remains to be validated. Third, the age-EASIX was only assessed at admission, and the clinical impact of serial age-EASIX values on patient outcomes remains to be determined. Fourth, age-EASIX did not compare other scores such as quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) due to lack of clinical data.

In conclusion, our study suggests that age-adjusted EASIX is a feasible index to predict ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU requiring high-dose oxygen therapy. Additionally, age-adjusted EASIX may outperform EASIX and SOFA scores in predicting ICU mortality.

Notes

Authors’ Contributions

Conceptualization: Jeong JH, Heo M, Yoo JW. Methodology: Jeong JH, Heo M, Yoo JW. Formal analysis: Jeong JH, M Heo, Yoo JW. Data curation: Park S, Lee SH, Park O, Kim T, Yeo HJ, Jang JH, Cho WH, Yoo JW. Validation: Park S, Lee SH, Kim T, Yeo HJ, Jang JH, Cho WH, Yoo JW. Investigation: Park S, Lee SH, Kim T, Yeo HJ, Jang JH, Cho WH, Yoo JW. Writing - original draft preparation: Jeong JH, M Heo, Yoo JW. Writing - review and editing: Yoo JW. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

No funding to declare.

References

1. Karagiannidis C, Mostert C, Hentschker C, Voshaar T, Malzahn J, Schillinger G, et al. Case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of 10 021 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 920 German hospitals: an observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8:853–62.
2. Petrilli CM, Jones SA, Yang J, Rajagopalan H, O’Donnell L, Chernyak Y, et al. Factors associated with hospital admission and critical illness among 5279 people with coronavirus disease 2019 in New York City: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2020;369:m1966.
3. Carbonell R, Urgeles S, Rodriguez A, Bodi M, Martin-Loeches I, Sole-Violan J, et al. Mortality comparison between the first and second/third waves among 3,795 critical COVID-19 patients with pneumonia admitted to the ICU: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2021;11:100243.
4. COVID-19 Excess Mortality Collaborators. Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020-21. Lancet 2022;399:1513–36.
5. Carabelli AM, Peacock TP, Thorne LG, Harvey WT, Hughes J, ; COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium, et al. SARS-CoV-2 variant biology: immune escape, transmission and fitness. Nat Rev Microbiol 2023;21:162–77.
6. Berlin DA, Gulick RM, Martinez FJ. Severe COVID-19. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2451–60.
7. Gandhi RT, Lynch JB, Del Rio C. Mild or moderate COVID-19. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1757–66.
8. Wu C, Chen X, Cai Y, Xia J, Zhou X, Xu S, et al. Risk factors associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome and death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:934–43.
9. Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, Antonelli M, Cabrini L, Castelli A, et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy region, Italy. JAMA 2020;323:1574–81.
10. Grasselli G, Greco M, Zanella A, Albano G, Antonelli M, Bellani G, et al. Risk factors associated with mortality among patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units in Lombardy, Italy. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:1345–55.
11. COVID-ICU Group on behalf of the REVA Network and the COVID-ICU Investigators. Clinical characteristics and day-90 outcomes of 4244 critically ill adults with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med 2021;47:60–73.
12. Cummings MJ, Baldwin MR, Abrams D, Jacobson SD, Meyer BJ, Balough EM, et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2020;395:1763–70.
13. Lamers MM, Haagmans BL. SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. Nat Rev Microbiol 2022;20:270–84.
14. Bridges JP, Vladar EK, Huang H, Mason RJ. Respiratory epithelial cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19. Thorax 2022;77:203–9.
15. Ackermann M, Verleden SE, Kuehnel M, Haverich A, Welte T, Laenger F, et al. Pulmonary vascular endothelialitis, thrombosis, and angiogenesis in COVID-19. N Engl J Med 2020;383:120–8.
16. Bonaventura A, Vecchie A, Dagna L, Martinod K, Dixon DL, Van Tassell BW, et al. Endothelial dysfunction and immunothrombosis as key pathogenic mechanisms in COVID-19. Nat Rev Immunol 2021;21:319–29.
17. Prasad M, Leon M, Lerman LO, Lerman A. Viral endothelial dysfunction: a unifying mechanism for COVID-19. Mayo Clin Proc 2021;96:3099–108.
18. Leisman DE, Mehta A, Thompson BT, Charland NC, Gonye AL, Gushterova I, et al. Alveolar, endothelial, and organ injury marker dynamics in severe COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022;205:507–19.
19. Joffre J, Rodriguez L, Matthay ZA, Lloyd E, Fields AT, Bainton RJ, et al. COVID-19-associated lung microvascular endotheliopathy: a “from the bench” perspective. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022;206:961–72.
20. Rodriguez C, Luque N, Blanco I, Sebastian L, Barbera JA, Peinado VI, et al. Pulmonary endothelial dysfunction and thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2021;64:407–15.
21. Perico L, Benigni A, Casiraghi F, Ng LF, Renia L, Remuzzi G. Immunity, endothelial injury and complement-induced coagulopathy in COVID-19. Nat Rev Nephrol 2021;17:46–64.
22. Gu SX, Tyagi T, Jain K, Gu VW, Lee SH, Hwa JM, et al. Thrombocytopathy and endotheliopathy: crucial contributors to COVID-19 thromboinflammation. Nat Rev Cardiol 2021;18:194–209.
23. Luft T, Benner A, Jodele S, Dandoy CE, Storb R, Gooley T, et al. EASIX in patients with acute graft-versus-host disease: a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet Haematol 2017;4:e414–23.
24. Luft T, Benner A, Terzer T, Jodele S, Dandoy CE, Storb R, et al. EASIX and mortality after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2020;55:553–61.
25. Sanchez-Escamilla M, Flynn J, Devlin S, Maloy M, Fatmi SA, Tomas AA, et al. EASIX score predicts inferior survival after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2023;58:498–505.
26. Luft T, Dreger P, Radujkovic A. Endothelial cell dysfunction: a key determinant for the outcome of allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2021;56:2326–35.
27. Song GY, Jung SH, Kim K, Kim SJ, Yoon SE, Lee HS, et al. Endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX) is a reliable predictor for overall survival in patients with multiple myeloma. BMC Cancer 2020;20:803.
28. Park S, Go SI, Lee GW. The endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX) score is an independent prognostic factor in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. BMC Cancer 2022;22:816.
29. Korell F, Schreck N, Muller-Tidow C, Dreger P, Luft T, ; Taskforce allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation, et al. Pre-transplant EASIX and sepsis after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Intensive Care Med 2022;48:753–5.
30. Korell F, DeFilipp Z, Schreck N, Luft T, ; Taskforces Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation. Validation of pre-conditioning EASIX for prediction of sepsis after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Intensive Care Med 2023;49:1408–10.
31. Kalicinska E, Biernat M, Rybka J, Zinczuk A, Janocha-Litwin J, Rosiek-Biegus M, et al. Endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX) as an early predictor for mortality and overall survival in hematological and non-hematological patients with COVID-19: Multicenter Cohort Study. J Clin Med 2021;10:4373.
32. Zinczuk A, Rorat M, Simon K, Jurek T. EASIX, modified EASIX and simplified EASIX as an early predictor for intensive care unit admission and mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. J Pers Med 2022;12:1022.
33. Herrera MD, Mingorance C, Rodriguez-Rodriguez R, Alvarez de Sotomayor M. Endothelial dysfunction and aging: an update. Ageing Res Rev 2010;9:142–52.
34. Donato AJ, Machin DR, Lesniewski LA. Mechanisms of dysfunction in the aging vasculature and role in age-related disease. Circ Res 2018;123:825–48.
35. Perez-Garcia F, Bailen R, Torres-Macho J, Fernandez-Rodriguez A, Jimenez-Sousa MA, Jimenez E, et al. Age-adjusted endothelial activation and stress index for coronavirus disease 2019 at admission is a reliable predictor for 28-day mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:736028.
36. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3:32–5.
37. Varga Z, Flammer AJ, Steiger P, Haberecker M, Andermatt R, Zinkernagel AS, et al. Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19. Lancet 2020;395:1417–8.
38. Goshua G, Pine AB, Meizlish ML, Chang CH, Zhang H, Bahel P, et al. Endotheliopathy in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy: evidence from a single-centre, cross-sectional study. Lancet Haematol 2020;7:e575–82.
39. Libby P, Luscher T. COVID-19 is, in the end, an endothelial disease. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3038–44.
40. Stahl K, Gronski PA, Kiyan Y, Seeliger B, Bertram A, Pape T, et al. Injury to the endothelial glycocalyx in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020;202:1178–81.
41. Ferreira FL, Bota DP, Bross A, Melot C, Vincent JL. Serial evaluation of the SOFA score to predict outcome in critically ill patients. JAMA 2001;286:1754–8.
42. Raschke RA, Agarwal S, Rangan P, Heise CW, Curry SC. Discriminant accuracy of the SOFA score for determining the probable mortality of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation. JAMA 2021;325:1469–70.
43. Sherak RA, Sajjadi H, Khimani N, Tolchin B, Jubanyik K, Taylor RA, et al. SOFA score performs worse than age for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19. PLoS One 2024;19e0301013.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2024 The Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases

It is identical to the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curve. *p<0.001. †p=0.0411. ‡p=0.0016. EASIX: endothelial activation and stress index; SOFA: sequential organ failure assessment; AUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; CI: confidence interval.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Kaplan Meier survival curve according to log2 age-endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX).

Table 1.

Comparison of baseline characteristics of intensive care unit survivors and non-survivors

Variable Total Survivors Non-survivors p-value
Number 908 686 222
Age, yr-old 67.4±13.9 65.5±13.8 73.5±12.6 <0.001
Male sex 542 (59.7) 413 (60.2) 129 (58.1) 0.580
BMI, kg/m2 24.8±4.2 24.8±4.2 24.8±4.2 0.991
Comorbidities 670 (73.8) 483 (70.4) 187 (84.2) <0.001
 Hypertension 481 (53) 346 (50.4) 135 (60.8) 0.007
 Diabetes mellitus 313 (34.5) 224 (32.7) 89 (40.1) 0.043
 Chronic lung disease 70 (7.7) 45 (6.6) 25 (11.3) 0.022
 Chronic liver disease 29 (3.2) 22 (3.2) 7 (3.2) 0.968
 Cardiovascular disease 115 (12.7) 78 (11.4) 37 (16.7) 0.039
 Chronic kidney disease 66 (7.3) 40 (5.8) 26 (11.7) 0.003
 Chronic neurologic disease 131 (14.4) 84 (12.2) 47 (21.2) 0.001
 Connective tissue disease 16 (1.8) 15 (2.2) 1 (0.5) 0.138
 Hematologic malignancy 13 (1.4) 11 (1.6) 2 (0.9) 0.745
 Solid tumor 60 (6.6) 34 (5) 26 (11.7) <0.001
CFS 3.2±1.8 3±1.7 3.6±1.9 <0.001
SOFA score 4.4±3.02 3.9±2.7 5.7±3.6 <0.001
Use of remdesivir 678 (74.7) 527 (76.8) 151 (68.0) 0.009
Corticosteroid 872 (96.0) 659 (96.1) 213 (95.9) 0.937
Tocilizumab 88 (9.7) 71 (10.4) 17 (7.7) 0.236
RRT 109 (12.0) 31 (4.5) 78 (35.1) <0.001
Use of HFNO 746 (82.2) 588 (85.7) 158 (71.2) <0.001
Use of MV 537 (59.1) 339 (49.4) 198 (89.2) <0.001
Prone position 191 (21.0) 130 (19.0) 61 (27.5) 0.007
ECMO 106 (11.7) 63 (28.4) 44 (6.4) <0.001

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

BMI: body mass index; CFS: clinical frailty score; SOFA: sequential organ failure assessment; RRT: renal replacement therapy; HFNO: high flow nasal oxygen therapy; MV: mechanical ventilation; ECMO: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Table 2.

Comparison of laboratory parameters and value of EASIX and age-EASIX

Variable Total Survivors Non-survivors p-value
Number 908 686 222
WBC, ×103/mm3 8.9±6.8 8.4±4.7 10.4±10.8 0.009
Hb, g/dL 13±2.1 13.2±2 12.5±2.1 <0.001
Platelet, ×103/mm3 194.6±79.4 200.7±80 175.6±74.6 <0.001
BUN, mg/dL 23.5±16.5 20.1±13.9 30.6±21 <0.001
Creatinine, mg/dL 1.1±1.3 1±1.1 1.5±1.6 <0.001
Albumin, g/dL 3.3±0.5 3.3±0.5 3.1±0.5 <0.001
LDH, U/L 598.8±713.2 536.4±316.3 791.9±1,315.9 <0.001
CRP, mg/dL 25.3±73.8 23.4±51.6 30.8±118.5 0.013
D-dimer 3.6±7.7 3.2±6.8 5.0±9.8 <0.001
PaO2/FiO2 ratio, mm Hg 164.2±99.7 172.9±102.6 139.4±86.6 <0.001
Log2 EASIX 1.34±1.34 1.11±1.21 2.05±1.47 <0.001
Log2 age-EASIX 7.38±1.45 7.1±1.32 8.2±1.52 <0.001

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

EASIX: endothelial activation and stress index; WBC: white blood cell; Hb: hemoglobin; BUN: blood urea nitrogen; LDH: lactate dehydrogenase; CRP: C-reactive protein; PaO2/FiO2: partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen.

Table 3.

Univariate and multivariate analyses for factors associated with intensive care unit mortality

Variable Univariable
 Multivariable
OR 95% CI p-value OR 95% CI p-value
Male sex 0.917 0.674–1.247 0.580
BMI 0.995 0.959–1.032 0.800
Comorbidities* 2.246 1.511–3.338 <0.001 1.551 1.021–2.357 0.040
CFS 1.184 1.092–1.284 <0.001
SOFA 1.188 1.133–1.246 <0.001 1.069 1.009–1.133 0.023
Log2 age-EASIX 1.735 1.541–1.952 <0.001 1.564 1.367–1.789 <0.001
*

Comorbidities include hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease, chronic neurologic disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, connective tissue disease, solid tumor and hematologic malignancy.

OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; BMI: body mass index; CFS: clinical frailty score; SOFA: sequential organ failure assessment; EASIX: endothelial activation and stress index.