Use of a gas-operated ventilator as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in critically Ill COVID-19 patients in a middle-income country.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Internal and Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1007/s11739-024-03681-w
Pedro P Arias-Sanchez, Pedro D Wendel-Garcia, Hugo A Tirapé-Castro, Johanna Cobos, Selena X Jaramillo-Aguilar, Arianna M Peñaloza-Tinoco, Damary S Jaramillo-Aguilar, Alberto Martinez, Juan Pablo Holguín-Carvajal, Enrique Cabrera, Ferran Roche-Campo, Hernan Aguirre-Bermeo
{"title":"Use of a gas-operated ventilator as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in critically Ill COVID-19 patients in a middle-income country.","authors":"Pedro P Arias-Sanchez, Pedro D Wendel-Garcia, Hugo A Tirapé-Castro, Johanna Cobos, Selena X Jaramillo-Aguilar, Arianna M Peñaloza-Tinoco, Damary S Jaramillo-Aguilar, Alberto Martinez, Juan Pablo Holguín-Carvajal, Enrique Cabrera, Ferran Roche-Campo, Hernan Aguirre-Bermeo","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03681-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a notable undersupply of respiratory support devices, especially in low- and middle-income countries. As a result, many hospitals turned to alternative respiratory therapies, including the use of gas-operated ventilators (GOV). The aim of this study was to describe the use of GOV as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients and to compare clinical outcomes achieved with this device to conventional respiratory therapies. Retrospective cohort analysis of critically ill COVID-19 patients during the first local wave of the pandemic. The final analysis included 204 patients grouped according to the type of respiratory therapy received in the first 24 h, as follows: conventional oxygen therapy (COT), n = 28 (14%); GOV, n = 72 (35%); noninvasive ventilation (NIV), n = 49 (24%); invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), n = 55 (27%). In 72, GOV served as noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in 42 (58%) of these patients. In the other 30 patients (42%), 20 (28%) presented clinical improvement and were discharged; 10 (14%) died. In the COT and GOV groups, 68% and 39%, respectively, progressed to intubation (P ≤ 0.001). Clinical outcomes in the GOV and NIV groups were similar (no statistically significant differences). GOV was successfully used as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in more than half of patients. Clinical outcomes in the GOV group were comparable to those of the NIV group. These findings support the use of GOV as an emergency, noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in medical crises when alternative approaches to the standard of care may be justifiable.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"543-551"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11950081/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03681-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a notable undersupply of respiratory support devices, especially in low- and middle-income countries. As a result, many hospitals turned to alternative respiratory therapies, including the use of gas-operated ventilators (GOV). The aim of this study was to describe the use of GOV as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients and to compare clinical outcomes achieved with this device to conventional respiratory therapies. Retrospective cohort analysis of critically ill COVID-19 patients during the first local wave of the pandemic. The final analysis included 204 patients grouped according to the type of respiratory therapy received in the first 24 h, as follows: conventional oxygen therapy (COT), n = 28 (14%); GOV, n = 72 (35%); noninvasive ventilation (NIV), n = 49 (24%); invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), n = 55 (27%). In 72, GOV served as noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in 42 (58%) of these patients. In the other 30 patients (42%), 20 (28%) presented clinical improvement and were discharged; 10 (14%) died. In the COT and GOV groups, 68% and 39%, respectively, progressed to intubation (P ≤ 0.001). Clinical outcomes in the GOV and NIV groups were similar (no statistically significant differences). GOV was successfully used as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in more than half of patients. Clinical outcomes in the GOV group were comparable to those of the NIV group. These findings support the use of GOV as an emergency, noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in medical crises when alternative approaches to the standard of care may be justifiable.

Abstract Image

在中等收入国家的 COVID-19 重症患者中使用气体呼吸机作为无创桥接呼吸疗法。
在 COVID-19 大流行期间,呼吸支持设备明显供应不足,尤其是在中低收入国家。因此,许多医院转而采用替代呼吸疗法,包括使用气控呼吸机(GOV)。本研究旨在描述在 COVID-19 重症患者中使用 GOV 作为无创桥接呼吸疗法的情况,并比较使用该设备与传统呼吸疗法的临床效果。该研究对第一波当地大流行期间的 COVID-19 重症患者进行了回顾性队列分析。最终分析包括 204 名患者,根据他们在最初 24 小时内接受的呼吸疗法类型分组如下:常规氧疗 (COT),28 人(14%);GOV,72 人(35%);无创通气 (NIV),49 人(24%);有创机械通气 (IMV),55 人(27%)。在 72 名患者中,有 42 人(58%)使用 GOV 作为无创桥接呼吸疗法。在其他 30 名患者(42%)中,20 人(28%)临床症状有所改善并出院,10 人(14%)死亡。在 COT 组和 GOV 组中,分别有 68% 和 39% 的患者进展到插管治疗(P ≤ 0.001)。GOV 组和 NIV 组的临床结果相似(无统计学差异)。半数以上患者成功将 GOV 用作无创桥接呼吸疗法。GOV 组的临床疗效与 NIV 组相当。这些研究结果支持在医疗危机中使用 GOV 作为紧急无创桥接呼吸疗法,因为在这种情况下,采用标准护理以外的其他方法可能是合理的。
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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
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