key: cord-0691658-lqke11q2
authors: Garnier, Marc; Blez, Damien
title: ROX monitoring in critical COVID-19 patients treated with high flow oxygen: a real added value compared to the respiratory rate?
date: 2021-07-09
journal: Pulmonology
DOI: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2021.06.011
sha: d0fa0ed41ddf68862cb99a8206c9c2533186c11b
doc_id: 691658
cord_uid: lqke11q2

nan

We read with interest the communication by Vega et al. recently published in Pulmonology, dealing with the particular features of the ROX index in the population of COVID-19 critical patients treated with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). 1 We congratulate the authors for having added new evidence in this field, by investigating 120 additional patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure.

However, we would like to correct a misreading by the authors regarding our study published in In addition, we did not report that "respiratory rate had better accuracy than the ROX index" as suggested by Vega et al. in their discussion. In fact, we showed that the RR and ROX 30 minutes after HFNC initiation had similar predictive values for HFNC failure (AUROC 0.81 (0.61-0.96) and 0.78 (0.58-0.95), respectively). 2 Since it is easier to monitor the RR than the full ROX index, we entitled our work "less is more, better look at respiratory rate". We believe that the results provided by Vega are really significantly different?). However, we believe that such a late time point might not really

COVID-19 Pneumonia and ROX index: Time to set a new threshold for patients admitted outside the ICU

Monitoring of high-flow nasal cannula for SARS-CoV-2 severe pneumonia: less is more, better look at respiratory rate