The Diagnostic Accuracy of Subjective Dyspnea in Detecting Hypoxemia Among Outpatients with COVID 19

Objectives The majority of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 can be managed using virtual care. Dyspnea is challenging to assess remotely, and the accuracy of subjective dyspnea measures in capturing hypoxemia have not been formally evaluated for COVID-19. We explored the accuracy of subjective dyspnea in diagnosing hypoxemia in COVID-19 patients. Methods This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who met criteria for home oxygen saturation monitoring at a university-affiliated acute care hospital in Toronto, Canada from April 3, 2020 to June 8, 2020. Hypoxemia was defined by oxygen saturation <95%. Dyspnea measures were treated as diagnostic tests, and we determined their sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), negative/positive predictive value (NPV/PPV), and positive/negative likelihood ratios (+LR/-LR) for detecting hypoxemia. Results During the study period 64/298 (21.5%) of patients met criteria for home oxygen saturation monitoring, and of these 14/64 (21.9%) were diagnosed with hypoxemia. The presence/absence of dyspnea had limited accuracy for diagnosing hypoxemia, with SN 57% (95% CI 30-81%), SP 78% (63%-88%), NPV 86% (72%-94%), PPV 42% (21%-66%), +LR 2.55 (1.3-5.1), -LR 0.55 (0.3-1.0). An mMRC dyspnea score >1 (SP 97%, 95%CI 82%-100%), Roth Maximal Count <12 (SP 100%, 95%CI 75-100%), and Roth Counting time < 8 seconds (SP 93%, 95%CI 66%-100%) had high SP that could be used to rule in hypoxemia, but displayed low SN (≤50%). Conclusions Subjective dyspnea measures have inadequate accuracy for ruling out hypoxemia in high-risk patients with COVID-19. Safe home management of patients with COVID-19 should incorporate home oxygenation saturation monitoring. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement N/A ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study was approved by the institutional review board at Sunnybrook Health Sciences as minimal risk research, using data collected for routine clinical practice, and the requirement for informed consent was waived All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes N/A