Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19: Interpreting the Current Epidemiology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wunsch H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7328308 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19: Interpreting the Current Epidemiology.
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20200701 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatients requiring mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 have different characteristics of evolution and outcome compared to the general ICU population. Although early weaning from mechanical ventilation is associated with improved outcomes, inadequate identification of patients unable to be weaned may lead to extubation failure and increased days on mechanical ventilation. Outcomes related to mechanical ventilation weaning in this population are scare and inconclusive. Therefore, the objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of mechanical ventilation weaning in subjects with acute respiratory failure induced by COVID-19.MethodsThis was a multi-center, prospective cohort study. We included adult subjects requiring at least 12 h of mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 infection admitted to any participating ICUs. Characteristics of the mechanical ventilation weaning and extubation process, as well as clinical results, were the primary outcome variables. Weaning types were defined according to previously described and internationally recognized categories.ResultsThree hundred twenty-six subjects from 8 ICUs were included. A spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) was not performed in 52.1% of subjects. One hundred twenty-eight subjects were extubated, and 29.7% required re-intubation. All the subjects included could be classified by Weaning according to a New Definition (WIND) classification (group 0 = 52.1%, group 1 = 28.5%, group 2 = 8.0%, and group 3 = 11.3%) with statistically significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (P < .001) and ICU length of stay (P < .001) between groups.ConclusionsThe mechanical ventilation weaning process in subjects with COVID-19 was negatively affected by the disease, with many subjects never completing an SBT. Even though temporal variables were modified, the clinical outcomes in each weaning group were similar to those previously reported.
| S-EPMC9993524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeLimited mechanical ventilators (MV) during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hypoxemic patients, which has not been studied well. We aimed to assess the association of NIV versus MV with mortality and morbidity during respiratory intervention among hypoxemic patients admitted with COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multi-center cohort study across 5 hospitals during March-April 2020. Outcomes included mortality, severe COVID-19-related symptoms, time to discharge, and final oxygen saturation (SpO2) at the conclusion of the respiratory intervention. Multivariable regression of outcomes was conducted in all hypoxemic participants, 4 subgroups, and propensity-matched analysis.ResultsOf 2381 participants with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, 688 were included in the study who were hypoxemic upon initiation of respiratory intervention. During the study period, 299 participants died (43%), 163 were admitted to the ICU (24%), and 121 experienced severe COVID-19-related symptoms (18%). Participants on MV had increased mortality than those on NIV (128/154 [83%] versus 171/534 [32%], OR = 30, 95% CI 16-60) with a mean survival of 6 versus 15 days, respectively. The MV group experienced more severe COVID-19-related symptoms [55/154 (36%) versus 66/534 (12%), OR = 4.3, 95% CI 2.7-6.8], longer time to discharge (mean 17 versus 7.1 days), and lower final SpO2 (92 versus 94%). Across all subgroups and propensity-matched analysis, MV was associated with a greater OR of death than NIV.ConclusionsNIV was associated with lower respiratory intervention mortality and morbidity than MV. However, findings may be liable to unmeasured confounding and further study from randomized controlled trials is needed to definitively determine the role of NIV in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8179090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify potential predictors for invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.MethodsThis study retrospectively analyzes data of 516 patients with confirmed COVID-19, who were categorized into three groups based on which mechanical ventilation method was used during the hospitalization period.ResultsAmong 516 confirmed cases with COVID-19, 446 patients did not receive mechanical ventilation, 38 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and 32 received non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV). The median age of the included patients was 61 years old (interquartile range, 52-69). A total of 432 patients had one or more coexisting illnesses. The main clinical symptoms included fever (79.46%), dry cough (66.47%) and shortness of breath (46.90%). IMV and NIMV patients included more men, more coexisting illnesses and received more medication. Patients in the IMV group and NIMV had higher leukocyte and neutrophil count, lower lymphocyte count, higher aspartate aminotransferase (AST), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) and D-dimer levels and lower albumin (ALB) level. The univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and LDH had a predictive role as indicators for IMV, and the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and PCT had a predictive role as indicators for NIMV. The area under the curve (AUC) of use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and LDH was 0.885 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.838-0.933, p < 0.0001), which provided the specificity and sensitivity 77.7% and 90.9%, respectively. AUC of the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and PCT for NIMV was 0.888 (95% CI 0.825-0.952, p < 0.0001), which provided the specificity and sensitivity 70.3% and 96.4%, respectively.ConclusionGlucocorticoid, increased neutrophil and LDH were predictive indicators for IMV, whereas glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil and PCT were predictive indicators for NIMV. In addition, the above-mentioned mediators had the most predictive meaning for mechanical ventilation when combined.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
| S-EPMC7570781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes.MethodProspective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min.ResultsForty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001).ConclusionAmong critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.
| S-EPMC8442133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a risk factor for death in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for respiratory support. Previous reports suggested higher mortality in COPD patients with COVID-19. It is yet unknown whether patients with COPD were treated differently compared to non-COPD patients. We compared the ventilation management and outcomes of invasive ventilation for COVID-19 in COPD patients versus non-COPD patients. This was a post hoc analysis of a nation-wide, observational study in the Netherlands. COPD patients were compared to non-COPD patients with respect to key ventilation parameters. The secondary endpoints included adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxemia, and 28-day mortality. Of a total of 1090 patients, 88 (8.1%) were classified as having COPD. The ventilation parameters were not different between COPD patients and non-COPD patients, except for FiO2, which was higher in COPD patients. Prone positioning was applied more often in COPD patients. COPD patients had higher 28-day mortality than non-COPD patients. COPD had an independent association with 28-day mortality. In this cohort of patients who received invasive ventilation for COVID-19, only FiO2 settings and the use of prone positioning were different between COPD patients and non-COPD patients. COPD patients had higher mortality than non-COPD patients.
| S-EPMC10532133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Though mechanical ventilation (MV) is used to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), little is known about the long-term health implications of this treatment. Our objective was to determine the association between MV for treatment of COVID-19 and likelihood of hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, and reason for readmission. This study was a longitudinal observational design with electronic health record (EHR) data collected between 3/1/2020 and 1/31/2021. Participants included 17,652 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during this period who were followed through 6/30/2021. The primary outcome was readmission to inpatient care following discharge. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and reason for readmission. Rates of readmission and mortality were compared between ventilated and non-ventilated patients using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Differences in reasons for readmission by MV status were compared using multinomial logistic regression. Patient characteristics and measures of illness severity were balanced between those who were mechanically ventilated and those who were not utilizing 1-to-1 propensity score matching. The sample had a median age of 63 and was 47.1% female. There were 1,131 (6.4%) patients who required MV during their initial hospitalization. Rates (32.1% versus 9.9%) and hazard of readmission were greater for patients requiring MV in the propensity score-matched samples [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.34 (2.72-4.10)]. Rates (15.3% versus 3.4%) and hazard [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.12 (2.32-4.20)] of all-cause mortality were also associated with MV status. Ventilated patients were more likely to be readmitted for reasons which were classified as COVID-19, infectious diseases, and respiratory diagnoses compared to non-ventilated patients. Mechanical ventilation is a necessary treatment for severely ill patients. However, it may be associated with adverse outcomes including hospital readmission and death. More intense post-discharge monitoring may be warranted to decrease this associational finding.
| S-EPMC9821470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in care delivery for critically ill patients, due to factors including increased numbers of ICU patients, shifting staff roles, and changed care locations. As these changes may have impacted the care of patients without COVID-19, we assessed changes in common ICU practices for mechanically ventilated patients with non-COVID acute respiratory failure at the onset of and during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignInterrupted time series analysis, adjusted for seasonality and autocorrelation where present, evaluating trends in common ICU practices prior to the pandemic (March 2016 to February 2020), at the onset of the pandemic (April 2020) and intra-pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020).SettingPremier Healthcare Database, containing data from 25% of U.S. discharges from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020.PatientsPatients without COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure.InterventionsWe assessed monthly rates of chest radiograph (CXR), chest CT scans, lower extremity noninvasive vascular testing (LENI), bronchoscopy, arterial catheters, and central venous catheters.Measurements and main resultsWe identified 742,096 mechanically ventilated patients without COVID-19 at 545 hospitals. At the onset of the pandemic, CXR (-0.5% [-0.9% to -0.2%; p = 0.001]), LENI (LENI: -2.1% [-3.3% to -0.9%; p = 0.001]), and bronchoscopy rates (-1.0% [-1.5% to -0.6%; p < 0.001]) decreased; use of chest CT increased (1.5% [0.5-2.5%; p = 0.006]). Use of arterial lines and central venous catheters did not change significantly. Intra-pandemic, LENI (0.5% [0.3-0.7%; p < 0.001]/mo) and bronchoscopy (0.1% [0.05-0.2%; p < 0.001]/mo) trends increased relative to pre-pandemic trends, while the remainder of practices did not change significantly.ConclusionsWe observed several statistically significant changes to practice patterns among patients without COVID-19 early during the pandemic. However, most of the changes were small or temporary, suggesting that routine practices in the care of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU was not drastically affected by the pandemic.
| S-EPMC10072312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19 is high, particularly among those receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). Despite the high number of patients treated worldwide, data on respiratory mechanics are currently scarce and the optimal setting of MV remains to be defined. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of available data about respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and MV settings in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, and to identify knowledge gaps.Main textPubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to October 30, 2020 for studies providing at least one ventilatory parameter collected within 24 h from the ICU admission. The quality of the studies was independently assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. A total of 26 studies were included for a total of 14,075 patients. At ICU admission, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) values ranged from 9 to 16.5 cm of water (cmH2O), suggesting that high levels of PEEP were commonly used for setting MV for these patients. Patients with COVID-19 are severely hypoxemic at ICU admission and show a median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ranging from 102 to 198 mmHg. Static respiratory system compliance (Crs) values at ICU admission were highly heterogenous, ranging between 24 and 49 ml/cmH2O. Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents were widely used, ranging from 17 to 81 and 22 to 88%, respectively; both rates were higher than previously reported in patients with "classical" acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).ConclusionsAvailable data show that, in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, respiratory mechanics and MV settings within 24 h from ICU admission are heterogeneous but similar to those reported for "classical" ARDS. However, to date, complete data regarding mechanical properties of respiratory system, optimal setting of MV and the role of rescue treatments for refractory hypoxemia are still lacking in the medical literature.
| S-EPMC7980724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19-related ARDS has unique features when compared with ARDS from other origins, suggesting a distinctive inflammatory pathogenesis. Data regarding the host response within the lung are sparse. The objective is to compare alveolar and systemic inflammation response patterns, mitochondrial alarmin release, and outcomes according to ARDS etiology (i.e., COVID-19 vs. non-COVID-19).MethodsBronchoalveolar lavage fluid and plasma were obtained from 7 control, 7 non-COVID-19 ARDS, and 14 COVID-19 ARDS patients. Clinical data, plasma, and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentrations of 45 inflammatory mediators and cell-free mitochondrial DNA were measured and compared.ResultsCOVID-19 ARDS patients required mechanical ventilation (MV) for significantly longer, even after adjustment for potential confounders. There was a trend toward higher concentrations of plasma CCL5, CXCL2, CXCL10, CD40 ligand, IL-10, and GM-CSF, and ELF concentrations of CXCL1, CXCL10, granzyme B, TRAIL, and EGF in the COVID-19 ARDS group compared with the non-COVID-19 ARDS group. Plasma and ELF CXCL10 concentrations were independently associated with the number of ventilator-free days, without correlation between ELF CXCL-10 and viral load. Mitochondrial DNA plasma and ELF concentrations were elevated in all ARDS patients, with no differences between the two groups. ELF concentrations of mitochondrial DNA were correlated with alveolar cell counts, as well as IL-8 and IL-1β concentrations.ConclusionCXCL10 could be one key mediator involved in the dysregulated immune response. It should be evaluated as a candidate biomarker that may predict the duration of MV in COVID-19 ARDS patients. Targeting the CXCL10-CXCR3 axis could also be considered as a new therapeutic approach.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03955887.
| S-EPMC7604548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring mechanical ventilation have high mortality and resource utilisation. The ability to predict which patients may require mechanical ventilation allows increased acuity of care and targeted interventions to potentially mitigate deterioration.MethodsWe included hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in this single-centre retrospective observational study. Our primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death within 24 h. As clinical decompensation is more recognisable, but less modifiable, as the prediction window shrinks, we also assessed 4, 8, and 48 h prediction windows. Model features included demographic information, laboratory results, comorbidities, medication administration, and vital signs. We created a Random Forest model, and assessed performance using 10-fold cross-validation. The model was compared with models derived from generalised estimating equations using discrimination.ResultsNinety-three (23%) of 398 patients required mechanical ventilation or died within 14 days of admission. The Random Forest model predicted pending mechanical ventilation with good discrimination (C-statistic=0.858; 95% confidence interval, 0.841-0.874), which is comparable with the discrimination of the generalised estimating equation regression. Vitals sign data including SpO2/FiO2 ratio (Random Forest Feature Importance Z-score=8.56), ventilatory frequency (5.97), and heart rate (5.87) had the highest predictive utility. In our highest-risk cohort, the number of patients needed to identify a single new case was 3.2, and for our second quintile it was 5.0.ConclusionMachine learning techniques can be leveraged to improve the ability to predict which patients with COVID-19 are likely to require mechanical ventilation, identifying unrecognised bellwethers and providing insight into the constellation of accompanying signs of respiratory failure in COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7833820 | biostudies-literature