Comparison of non-invasive ventilation on bilevel pressure mode and CPAP in the treatment of COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure. A propensity score-matched analysis.

Andrés Carrillo-Alcaraz, Miguel Guia, Laura Lopez-Gomez, Pablo Bayoumy, Aurea Higon-Cañigral, Elena Carrasco González, Pilar Tornero Yepez, Juan Miguel Sánchez-Nieto
{"title":"Comparison of non-invasive ventilation on bilevel pressure mode and CPAP in the treatment of COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure. A propensity score-matched analysis.","authors":"Andrés Carrillo-Alcaraz, Miguel Guia, Laura Lopez-Gomez, Pablo Bayoumy, Aurea Higon-Cañigral, Elena Carrasco González, Pilar Tornero Yepez, Juan Miguel Sánchez-Nieto","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2025.502146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences in the effectiveness and complications of CPAP versus non-invasive ventilation on bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the treatment of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure (ARF).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective observational study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICU.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>All COVID-19 patients, admitted to an ICU between March 2020 and February 2023, who required CPAP or BiPAP were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Use of CPAP or BiPAP in COVID-19 associated ARF.</p><p><strong>Main variables of interest: </strong>Initial clinical variables, CPAP and BiPAP failure rate, complications, in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>429 patients were analyzed, of whom 328 (76.5%) initially received CPAP and 101 (23.5%) BiPAP. Initial respiratory rate was 30 ± 8 in the CPAP group and 34 ± 9 in BiPAP (p < 0.001), while PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> was 120 ± 26 and 111 ± 24 mmHg (p = 0.001), respectively. The most frequent complication related to the device was claustrophobia/discomfort, 23.2% in CPAP and 25.7% in BiPAP (p = 0.596), while the most frequent complications not related to the device were severe ARDS, 58.6% and 70.1% (p = 0.044), and hyperglycemia, 44.5% and 37.6%, respectively (p = 0.221). After adjusting by propensity score matched analysis, neither failure of the device (OR 1.37, CI 95% 0.72-2.62) nor in-hospital mortality (OR 1.57, CI 95% 0.73-3.42) differed between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Either non-invasive ventilatory device failure or mortality rate differed in patients initially treated with CPAP versus BiPAP.</p>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":" ","pages":"502146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2025.502146","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

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences in the effectiveness and complications of CPAP versus non-invasive ventilation on bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the treatment of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure (ARF).

Design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: ICU.

Patients: All COVID-19 patients, admitted to an ICU between March 2020 and February 2023, who required CPAP or BiPAP were analyzed.

Interventions: Use of CPAP or BiPAP in COVID-19 associated ARF.

Main variables of interest: Initial clinical variables, CPAP and BiPAP failure rate, complications, in-hospital mortality.

Results: 429 patients were analyzed, of whom 328 (76.5%) initially received CPAP and 101 (23.5%) BiPAP. Initial respiratory rate was 30 ± 8 in the CPAP group and 34 ± 9 in BiPAP (p < 0.001), while PaO2/FiO2 was 120 ± 26 and 111 ± 24 mmHg (p = 0.001), respectively. The most frequent complication related to the device was claustrophobia/discomfort, 23.2% in CPAP and 25.7% in BiPAP (p = 0.596), while the most frequent complications not related to the device were severe ARDS, 58.6% and 70.1% (p = 0.044), and hyperglycemia, 44.5% and 37.6%, respectively (p = 0.221). After adjusting by propensity score matched analysis, neither failure of the device (OR 1.37, CI 95% 0.72-2.62) nor in-hospital mortality (OR 1.57, CI 95% 0.73-3.42) differed between both groups.

Conclusions: Either non-invasive ventilatory device failure or mortality rate differed in patients initially treated with CPAP versus BiPAP.

双水平压力模式无创通气与CPAP治疗COVID-19相关急性呼吸衰竭的比较倾向评分匹配分析。
目的:分析双水平气道正压通气(BiPAP)与无创通气治疗COVID-19相关急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)的疗效及并发症的差异。设计:回顾性观察性研究。设置:ICU。患者:分析2020年3月至2023年2月期间入住ICU的所有需要CPAP或BiPAP的COVID-19患者。干预措施:在COVID-19相关ARF中使用CPAP或BiPAP。主要研究变量:初始临床变量,CPAP和BiPAP失败率,并发症,住院死亡率。结果:分析429例患者,其中328例(76.5%)最初接受CPAP, 101例(23.5%)接受BiPAP。最初的呼吸速率是30 ±8 CPAP组和34 ±BiPAP 9 (p 2 /供给120 ± 26日和111年 ± 24 毫米汞柱(p = 0.001),分别。与设备相关的最常见并发症为幽闭恐惧症/不适,CPAP为23.2%,BiPAP为25.7% (p = 0.596),与设备无关的最常见并发症为严重ARDS,分别为58.6%和70.1% (p = 0.044),高血糖症,分别为44.5%和37.6% (p = 0.221)。经倾向评分匹配分析调整后,两组间装置失效(OR 1.37, CI 95% 0.72-2.62)和住院死亡率(OR 1.57, CI 95% 0.73-3.42)均无差异。结论:CPAP与BiPAP初始治疗患者的无创通气装置失效或死亡率存在差异。
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