Continuous positive airway pressure as a useful tool in coronavirus disease 2019-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: experience from three UK hospitals

Yasser Noeman Ahmed, N. Setty, A. Roshdy, D. Powrie, Dor Amran, A. Elsheikh, S. Gokaraju, A. Tear, Maryam Noeman, M. Darda, I. El Sayed, Vijayalakshmi Karunanithi, Aarani Mahalingam, Muhammad Shafiq, Iman Abdul-Khaliq, J. Samuel
{"title":"Continuous positive airway pressure as a useful tool in coronavirus disease 2019-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: experience from three UK hospitals","authors":"Yasser Noeman Ahmed, N. Setty, A. Roshdy, D. Powrie, Dor Amran, A. Elsheikh, S. Gokaraju, A. Tear, Maryam Noeman, M. Darda, I. El Sayed, Vijayalakshmi Karunanithi, Aarani Mahalingam, Muhammad Shafiq, Iman Abdul-Khaliq, J. Samuel","doi":"10.4103/roaic.roaic_32_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Many coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients suffering acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), fail to respond to conventional oxygen therapy (COT). Subsequently, some centers escalate to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), while others resort directly to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We conducted a study to compare the use of CPAP versus COT alone in COVID-19-related AHRF. Patients and methods It is a retrospective cohort study of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients suffering AHRF and deemed eligible for IMV escalation at three university hospitals (United Kingdom) during a 3-month period. The primary endpoint was the need for intubation and the secondary endpoint was 60-day mortality. Results In total, 174 patients were included. In total, 84 patients received CPAP (group 1) and 90 received only COT (group 2). Both groups had comparable demographic criteria and disease severity. There was nonsignificant reduction in the need for IMV when using CPAP compared with COT alone (50 vs. 76.6%, P=0.866). Sixty-day mortality was significantly higher in group 2 (25 vs. 37.8%, P=0.02). COT as stand-alone therapy for COVID-19 patients (group 2) was associated with a significant increased relative risk of death (relative risk 2.14, 95% confidence interval 1.39–3.29) corresponding to a number needed to treat of 3.74 (95% confidence interval 2.47–7.73). Among patients who progressed to IMV, there was no difference in the risk of mortality between the two groups. Conclusion Introducing CPAP rather than escalating FiO2 or endotracheal intubation in COVID-19 cases refractory to COT is safe and associated with improved mortality. Clinical trials are needed to guide the optimum timing and selection of patients most likely to benefit.","PeriodicalId":151256,"journal":{"name":"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/roaic.roaic_32_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Many coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients suffering acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), fail to respond to conventional oxygen therapy (COT). Subsequently, some centers escalate to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), while others resort directly to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We conducted a study to compare the use of CPAP versus COT alone in COVID-19-related AHRF. Patients and methods It is a retrospective cohort study of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients suffering AHRF and deemed eligible for IMV escalation at three university hospitals (United Kingdom) during a 3-month period. The primary endpoint was the need for intubation and the secondary endpoint was 60-day mortality. Results In total, 174 patients were included. In total, 84 patients received CPAP (group 1) and 90 received only COT (group 2). Both groups had comparable demographic criteria and disease severity. There was nonsignificant reduction in the need for IMV when using CPAP compared with COT alone (50 vs. 76.6%, P=0.866). Sixty-day mortality was significantly higher in group 2 (25 vs. 37.8%, P=0.02). COT as stand-alone therapy for COVID-19 patients (group 2) was associated with a significant increased relative risk of death (relative risk 2.14, 95% confidence interval 1.39–3.29) corresponding to a number needed to treat of 3.74 (95% confidence interval 2.47–7.73). Among patients who progressed to IMV, there was no difference in the risk of mortality between the two groups. Conclusion Introducing CPAP rather than escalating FiO2 or endotracheal intubation in COVID-19 cases refractory to COT is safe and associated with improved mortality. Clinical trials are needed to guide the optimum timing and selection of patients most likely to benefit.
持续气道正压作为治疗2019冠状病毒病相关急性低氧性呼吸衰竭的有用工具:来自英国三家医院的经验
许多新冠肺炎(COVID-19)患者患有急性低氧性呼吸衰竭(AHRF),对常规氧疗(COT)无效。随后,一些中心升级为持续气道正压通气(CPAP),而其他中心则直接采用有创机械通气(IMV)。我们进行了一项研究,比较了在covid -19相关的AHRF中使用CPAP和单独使用COT的情况。患者和方法这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象是实验室确诊的COVID-19患者,他们患有AHRF,并被认为有资格在3个月期间(英国)在三所大学医院进行IMV升级。主要终点是是否需要插管,次要终点是60天死亡率。结果共纳入174例患者。总共有84例患者接受了CPAP(第一组),90例患者只接受了COT(第二组)。两组的人口统计学标准和疾病严重程度相当。与单独使用COT相比,使用CPAP时IMV的需求没有显著减少(50比76.6%,P=0.866)。第2组60天死亡率显著高于第2组(25 vs. 37.8%, P=0.02)。COT作为COVID-19患者(第二组)的独立治疗与相对死亡风险显著增加相关(相对风险2.14,95%置信区间1.39-3.29),对应于治疗所需的数字3.74(95%置信区间2.47-7.73)。在进展为IMV的患者中,两组之间的死亡风险没有差异。结论在COVID-19难治性COT患者中引入CPAP而不是升级FiO2或气管插管是安全的,并可降低死亡率。需要临床试验来指导最佳时机和选择最有可能受益的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信