Evaluation of aerosolized epoprostenol for hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Q2 Medicine
Hospital practice (1995) Pub Date : 2022-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-10 DOI:10.1080/21548331.2022.2047310
Vivek Kataria, Klayton Ryman, Ginger Tsai-Nguyen, Yosafe Wakwaya, Ariel Modrykamien
{"title":"Evaluation of aerosolized epoprostenol for hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019.","authors":"Vivek Kataria,&nbsp;Klayton Ryman,&nbsp;Ginger Tsai-Nguyen,&nbsp;Yosafe Wakwaya,&nbsp;Ariel Modrykamien","doi":"10.1080/21548331.2022.2047310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and 30 in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. The need for mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":35045,"journal":{"name":"Hospital practice (1995)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8935453/pdf/IHOP_0_2047310.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital practice (1995)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2022.2047310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objectives: Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals.

Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and 30 in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. The need for mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated.

Results: The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders.

Conclusion: The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.

雾化丙烯醇治疗2019冠状病毒病非插管低氧血症的疗效评价
目的:感染严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2 (SARS-CoV-2)的患者经常表现为发热性疾病,可能发展为肺炎和缺氧性呼吸衰竭。雾化丙烯醇(aEPO)在急性呼吸窘迫综合征和难治性低氧血症患者中的应用已被评估。缺乏文献评估aEPO对接受高流量鼻插管供氧支持的SARS-CoV-2患者的影响。本研究的目的是评估在氧饱和度目标指导下,与仅接受HFNC治疗的对照组相比,加入aEPO是否能阻止插管和/或延长插管时间。方法:采用单中心、回顾性研究方法,对2019冠状病毒感染(COVID-19)并入住重症监护病房的成年患者进行研究。共纳入60例患者。治疗组30例,对照组30例。在治疗组的患者中,评估对治疗的反应。评估了有反应者与无反应者之间的机械通气需求和医院死亡率。结果:两组间机械通气的主要结局无统计学差异。与对照组相比,治疗组从HFNC开始到插管的时间明显延长(5.7天对2.3天,P = 0.001)。两组之间的死亡率和住院时间没有统计学上的显著差异。被认为对aEPO有反应的患者与无反应的患者相比,机械通气率(50%对88%,P = 0.025)和死亡率(21%对63%,P = 0.024)较低。结论:HFNC治疗的COVID-19患者使用aEPO与机械通气率的降低无关。然而,该策略的应用可能会延长有创机械通气的时间,而不会影响其他临床结果。
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
Hospital practice (1995)
Hospital practice (1995) Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
×
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