Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19: Interpreting the Current Epidemiology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wunsch H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7328308 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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: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
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:As the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread rapidly across the globe, we aimed to identify and summarize the existing evidence on epidemiological characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and the effectiveness of control measures to inform policymakers and leaders in formulating management guidelines, and to provide directions for future research. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature and preprints on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak following predefined eligibility criteria. Of 317 research articles generated from our initial search on PubMed and preprint archives on 21 February 2020, 41 met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Current evidence suggests that it takes about 3-7 days for the epidemic to double in size. Of 21 estimates for the basic reproduction number ranging from 1.9 to 6.5, 13 were between 2.0 and 3.0. The incubation period was estimated to be 4-6 days, whereas the serial interval was estimated to be 4-8 days. Though the true case fatality risk is yet unknown, current model-based estimates ranged from 0.3% to 1.4% for outside China. There is an urgent need for rigorous research focusing on the mitigation efforts to minimize the impact on society.
| S-EPMC7231098 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7365381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatients with COVID-19 frequently develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Data on long-term survival of these patients are lacking. The authors investigated 1-year survival, quality of life, and functional recovery of patients with COVID-19 ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.DesignProspective observational study.SettingTertiary-care university hospital.ParticipantsAll patients with COVID-19 ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and discharged alive from hospital.InterventionsPatients were contacted by phone after 1 year. Functional, cognitive, and psychological outcomes were explored through a questionnaire and assessed using validated scales. Patients were offered the possibility to undergo a follow-up chest computed tomography (CT) scan.Measurements and main resultsThe study included all adult (age ≥18 years) patients with COVID-19-related ARDS admitted to an ICU of the authors' institution between February 25, 2020, and April 27, 2020, who received at least 1 day of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Of 116 patients who received IMV, 61 (52.6%) survived to hospital discharge. These survivors were assessed 1 year after discharge and 56 completed a battery of tests of cognition, activities of daily living, and interaction with family members. They had overall good functional recovery, with >80% reporting good recovery and no difficulties in usual activities. A total of 52 (93%) of patients had no dyspnea at rest. Severe anxiety/depression was reported by 5 (8.9%) patients. Comparing 2-month and 1-year data, the authors observed the most significant improvements in the areas of working status and exertional dyspnea. One-year chest CT scans were available for 36 patients; fibrotic-like changes were present in 4 patients.ConclusionsAll patients who survived the acute phase of COVID-19 and were discharged from the hospital were alive at the 1-year follow up, and the vast majority of them had good overall recovery and quality of life.
| S-EPMC8626145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The efficacy of glucocorticoids in COVID-19 is unclear. This study was designed to determine whether systemic glucocorticoid treatment in COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced mortality or mechanical ventilation. This observational study included 1,806 hospitalized COVID-19 patients; 140 were treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission. Early use of glucocorticoids was not associated with mortality or mechanical ventilation. However, glucocorticoid treatment of patients with initial C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥20 mg/dL was associated with significantly reduced risk of mortality or mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.70), while glucocorticoid treatment of patients with CRP <10 mg/dL was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality or mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.39-5.03). Whether glucocorticoid treatment is associated with changes in mortality or mechanical ventilation in patients with high or low CRP needs study in prospective, randomized clinical trials.
| S-EPMC7518134 | biostudies-literature