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.