Dataset Information

Timing of intubation and ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective analysis of 4198 critically ill patients during the first and second waves.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The optimal time to intubate patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia has not been adequately determined. While the use of non-invasive respiratory support before invasive mechanical ventilation might cause patient-self-induced lung injury and worsen the prognosis, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is frequently used to avoid intubation of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). We hypothesized that delayed intubation is associated with a high risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from adult patients with ARF due to COVID-19 admitted to 73 intensive care units (ICUs) between February 2020 and March 2021. Intubation was classified according to the timing of intubation. To assess the relationship between early versus late intubation and mortality, we excluded patients with ICU length of stay (LOS) < 7 days to avoid the immortal time bias and we did a propensity score and a cox regression analysis.

Results

We included 4,198 patients [median age, 63 (54‒71) years; 71% male; median SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score, 4 (3‒7); median APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) score, 13 (10‒18)], and median PaO₂/FiO₂ (arterial oxygen pressure/ inspired oxygen fraction), 131 (100‒190)]; intubation was considered very early in 2024 (48%) patients, early in 928 (22%), and late in 441 (10%). ICU mortality was 30% and median ICU stay was 14 (7‒28) days. Mortality was higher in the "late group" than in the "early group" (37 vs. 32%, p < 0.05). The implementation of an early intubation approach was found to be an independent protective risk factor for mortality (HR 0.6; 95%CI 0.5‒0.7).

Conclusions

Early intubation within the first 24 h of ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was found to be an independent protective risk factor of mortality.

Trial registration

The study was registered at Clinical-Trials.gov (NCT04948242) (01/07/2021).

SUBMITTER: Manrique S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10133910 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Timing of intubation and ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective analysis of 4198 critically ill patients during the first and second waves.

Manrique Sara S Claverias Laura L Magret Mónica M Masclans Joan Ramón JR Bodi María M Trefler Sandra S Canadell Laura L Díaz Emili E Sole-Violan Jordi J Bisbal-Andrés Elena E Natera Ruth González RG Moreno Antonio Albaya AA Vallverdu Montserrat M Ballesteros Juan Carlos JC Socias Lorenzo L Vidal Federico Gordo FG Sancho Susana S Martin-Loeches Ignacio I Rodriguez Alejandro A

BMC anesthesiology 20230427 1

<h4>Background</h4>The optimal time to intubate patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia has not been adequately determined. While the use of non-invasive respiratory support before invasive mechanical ventilation might cause patient-self-induced lung injury and worsen the prognosis, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is frequently used to avoid intubation of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). We hypothesized that delayed intubation is associated with a high risk of mortality in COVID-19 patie ...[more]

PMID: 37106321

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIncreasing time to mechanical ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula use may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019. We examined the impact of time to intubation and use of high-flow nasal cannula on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingSix coronavirus disease 2019-specific ICUs across four university-affiliated hospitals in Atlanta, Georgia.PatientsAdults with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who received high-flow nasal cannula or mechanical ventilation.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAmong 231 patients admitted to the ICU, 109 (47.2%) were treated with high-flow nasal cannula and 97 (42.0%) were intubated without preceding high-flow nasal cannula use. Of those managed with high-flow nasal cannula, 78 (71.6%) ultimately received mechanical ventilation. In total, 175 patients received mechanical ventilation; 44.6% were female, 66.3% were Black, and the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 56-75 yr). Seventy-six patients (43.4%) were intubated within 8 hours of ICU admission, 57 (32.6%) between 8 and 24 hours of admission, and 42 (24.0%) greater than or equal to 24 hours after admission. Patients intubated within 8 hours were more likely to have diabetes, chronic comorbidities, and higher admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. Mortality did not differ by time to intubation (≤ 8 hr: 38.2%; 8-24 hr: 31.6%; ≥ 24 hr: 38.1%; p = 0.7), and there was no association between time to intubation and mortality in adjusted analysis. Similarly, there was no difference in initial static compliance, duration of mechanical ventilation, or ICU length of stay by timing of intubation. High-flow nasal cannula use prior to intubation was not associated with mortality.ConclusionsIn this cohort of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019, neither time from ICU admission to intubation nor high-flow nasal cannula use were associated with increased mortality. This study provides evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure can be managed similarly to hypoxic respiratory failure of other etiologies.

Project description:ImportanceTracheal intubation is one of the most commonly performed and high-risk interventions in critically ill patients. Limited information is available on adverse peri-intubation events.ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence and nature of adverse peri-intubation events and to assess current practice of intubation in critically ill patients.Design, setting, and participantsThe International Observational Study to Understand the Impact and Best Practices of Airway Management in Critically Ill Patients (INTUBE) study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study involving consecutive critically ill patients undergoing tracheal intubation in the intensive care units (ICUs), emergency departments, and wards, from October 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019 (August 28, 2019, was the final follow-up) in a convenience sample of 197 sites from 29 countries across 5 continents.ExposuresTracheal intubation.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse peri-intubation events defined as at least 1 of the following events occurring within 30 minutes from the start of the intubation procedure: cardiovascular instability (either: systolic pressure <65 mm Hg at least once, <90 mm Hg for >30 minutes, new or increase need of vasopressors or fluid bolus >15 mL/kg), severe hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation <80%) or cardiac arrest. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit mortality.ResultsOf 3659 patients screened, 2964 (median age, 63 years; interquartile range [IQR], 49-74 years; 62.6% men) from 197 sites across 5 continents were included. The main reason for intubation was respiratory failure in 52.3% of patients, followed by neurological impairment in 30.5%, and cardiovascular instability in 9.4%. Primary outcome data were available for all patients. Among the study patients, 45.2% experienced at least 1 major adverse peri-intubation event. The predominant event was cardiovascular instability, observed in 42.6% of all patients undergoing emergency intubation, followed by severe hypoxemia (9.3%) and cardiac arrest (3.1%). Overall ICU mortality was 32.8%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this observational study of intubation practices in critically ill patients from a convenience sample of 197 sites across 29 countries, major adverse peri-intubation events-in particular cardiovascular instability-were observed frequently.

Project description:Propofol, ketamine, and etomidate are common anesthetic agents for induction of anesthesia in the ICU. The choice between these agents is complex and may not depend solely upon severity of illness.ObjectivesTo evaluate the association between the administration of propofol, ketamine, and etomidate and ICU, hospital mortality, and length of stay.Design setting and participantsRetrospective single-center cohort study. ICUs in a tertiary medical center, between January 01, 2012, and December 31, 2017. Critically ill adult patients given a single IV anesthetic for intubation.Main outcome and measuresPrimary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU- and hospital-free days through 28 days. An inverse probability of treatment weighed approach was used. The propensity score was estimated using a generalized logit model as a function of patient characteristics, admission source, ICU type, readmission status, length of ICU stays prior to intubation, and acute physiology score. Mortality outcomes were assessed with weighted logistic regression and -free days assessed by weighted linear regression with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.ResultsOf 2,673 patients, 36% received propofol, 30% ketamine and 34% etomidate. Overall ICU and hospital mortality were 19% and 29%, respectively. Patients given ketamine had higher odds of ICU mortality (1.45; [95% CI, 1.07-1.94]; p = 0.015) and patients given etomidate had higher odds of ICU mortality (1.87; 1.40-2.49; p < 0.001), hospital mortality (1.43; 1.09-1.86; p = 0.009), and less ICU-free days (-2.10; -3.21 to -1.00; p < 0.001) than those given propofol. Patients given ketamine and etomidate had similar odds of hospital mortality (1.06; 0.80-1.42; p = 0.761) and similar hospital-free days (0.30; -0.81 to 1.40; p = 0.600).Conclusions and relevanceCompared with ketamine and etomidate, propofol was associated with better outcome in critically ill patients undergoing anesthesia for intubation. Even after adjusting for severity of illness prior to intubation, residual confounders cannot be excluded.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear whether the changes in critical care throughout the pandemic have improved the outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in adults with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to 73 ICUs from Spain, Andorra and Ireland between February 2020 and March 2021. The first wave corresponded with the period from February 2020 to June 2020, whereas the second/third waves occurred from July 2020 to March 2021. The primary outcome was ICU mortality between study periods. Mortality predictors and differences in mortality between COVID-19 waves were identified using logistic regression.FindingsAs of March 2021, the participating ICUs had included 3795 COVID-19 pneumonia patients, 2479 (65·3%) and 1316 (34·7%) belonging to the first and second/third waves, respectively. Illness severity scores predicting mortality were lower in the second/third waves compared with the first wave according with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation system (median APACHE II score 12 [IQR 9-16] vs 14 [IQR 10-19]) and the organ failure assessment score (median SOFA 4 [3-6] vs 5 [3-7], p<0·001). The need of invasive mechanical ventilation was high (76·1%) during the whole study period. However, a significant increase in the use of high flow nasal cannula (48·7% vs 18·2%, p<0·001) was found in the second/third waves compared with the first surge. Significant changes on treatments prescribed were also observed, highlighting the remarkable increase on the use of corticosteroids to up to 95.9% in the second/third waves. A significant reduction on the use of tocilizumab was found during the study (first wave 28·9% vs second/third waves 6·2%, p<0·001), and a negligible administration of lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon during the second/third waves compared with the first wave. Overall ICU mortality was 30·7% (n = 1166), without significant differences between study periods (first wave 31·7% vs second/third waves 28·8%, p = 0·06). No significant differences were found in ICU mortality between waves according to age subsets except for the subgroup of 61-75 years of age, in whom a reduced unadjusted ICU mortality was observed in the second/third waves (first 38·7% vs second/third 34·0%, p = 0·048). Non-survivors were older, with higher severity of the disease, had more comorbidities, and developed more complications. After adjusting for confounding factors through a multivariable analysis, no significant association was found between the COVID-19 waves and mortality (OR 0·81, 95% CI 0·64-1·03; p = 0·09). Ventilator-associated pneumonia rate increased significantly during the second/third waves and it was independently associated with ICU mortality (OR 1·48, 95% CI 1·19-1·85, p<0·001). Nevertheless, a significant reduction both in the ICU and hospital length of stay in survivors was observed during the second/third waves.InterpretationDespite substantial changes on supportive care and management, we did not find significant improvement on case-fatality rates among critical COVID-19 pneumonia patients.FundingRicardo Barri Casanovas Foundation (RBCF2020) and SEMICYUC.

Dataset Information

Timing of intubation and ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective analysis of 4198 critically ill patients during the first and second waves.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Timing of intubation and ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective analysis of 4198 critically ill patients during the first and second waves.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets