[Non-invasive ventilatory support in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A Spanish multicenter registry].
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fernandez R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7885668 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8084990 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate risk factors for non-invasive/invasive ventilatory support (NI/I-VS) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsAll consecutive patients admitted to the Infectious Diseases Unit and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Santa Maria Annunziata Hospital (Florence, Italy), from February 25 to April 25, 2020, with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. NI/I-VS was defined as the need for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) (non-invasive ventilation) or mechanical ventilation, not including low-flow systems of oxygen therapy such as the Venturi mask or nasal cannula.ResultsNinety-seven patients were enrolled; 61.9% (60/97) were male and the median patient age was 64 years. The in-hospital mortality was 9.3%. Thirty-five of the 97 patients (36%) required ICU admission and 94.8% (92/97) were prescribed oxygen therapy: 10.8% (10/92) by nasal cannula, 44.5% (41/92) by Venturi mask, 31.5% (29/92) by CPAP, 2.2% (2/92) by BPAP, and 10.8% (10/92) by mechanical ventilation following intubation. On univariate analysis, patients with a body mass index >30, type II diabetes mellitus, and those presenting with dyspnoea, asthenia, SOFA score ≥2 points, PaO2/FiO2 <300, temperature >38 °C, increased levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alanine aminotransferase, and C-reactive protein, and a d-dimer >1000 ng/mL at admission more frequently underwent NI/I-VS. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed temperature >38 °C (odds ratio (OR) 21.2, 95% confidential interval (95% CI) 3.5-124.5, p = 0.001), LDH >250 U/l (OR 15.2, 95% CI 1.8-128.8, p = 0.012), and d-dimer >1000 ng/mL (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.2-17.3, p = 0.027) as significantly associated with the requirement for NI/I-VS. A non-significant trend (p = 0.051) was described for PaO2/FiO2 <300.ConclusionsTemperature >38 °C, LDH > 250 U/l, and d-dimer >1000 ng/mL were found to be independent risk factors for NI/I-VS in COVID-19 patients. In order to quickly identify patients likely at risk of developing a critical illness, inflammatory markers should be assessed upon hospital admission.
| S-EPMC7484622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid worldwide spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis has put health systems under pressure to a level never experienced before, putting intensive care units in a position to fail to meet an exponentially growing demand. The main clinical feature of the disease is a progressive arterial hypoxemia which rapidly leads to ARDS which makes the use of intensive care and mechanical ventilation almost inevitable. The difficulty of health systems to guarantee a corresponding supply of resources in intensive care, together with the uncertain results reported in the literature with respect to patients who undergo early conventional ventilation, make the search for alternative methods of oxygenation and ventilation and potentially preventive of the need for tracheal intubation, such as non-invasive respiratory support techniques particularly valuable. In this context, the Emergency Department, located between the area outside the hospital and hospital ward and ICU, assumes the role of a crucial junction, due to the possibility of applying these techniques at a sufficiently early stage and being able to rapidly evaluate their effectiveness. This position paper describes the indications for the use of non-invasive respiratory support techniques in respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-related pneumonia, formulated by the Non-invasive Ventilation Faculty of the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) on the base of what is available in the literature and on the authors' direct experience. Rationale, literature, tips & tricks, resources, risks and expected results, and patient interaction will be discussed for each one of the escalating non-invasive respiratory techniques: standard oxygen, HFNCO, CPAP, NIPPV, and awake self-repositioning. The final chapter describes our suggested approach to the failing patient.
| S-EPMC8803573 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8051928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and aimNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) have been widely employed to treat acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia, but their role in terms of efficacy and safety are still debated. The aim of this review was to analyse mortality and intubation rates in COVID-19 patients treated with NIV/CPAP.MethodsRapid review methodology was applied to include all the studies published since December-2019 until November-2020 with available data on in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with NIV or CPAP.Results23 manuscripts were included (4776 patients, 66% males, 46% with hypertension). 46% of patients received non-invasive respiratory support, of which 48.4% with CPAP, 46% with NIV, and 4% with either CPAP or NIV. Non-invasive respiratory support failed in 47.7% of patients, of which 26.5% were intubated and 40.9% died. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients treated with NIV compared with CPAP (35.1% vs. 22.2%). Complications were under-reported, but mostly not related to CPAP/NIV treatment.ConclusionCPAP and NIV appear equally and frequently applied in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, but associated with high mortality. Robust evidence is urgently needed to confirm the clinical efficacy of non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19-related ARDS.
| S-EPMC8137355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel coronavirus called "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2) caused an outbreak in December 2019, starting from the Chinese city of Wuhan, in the Hubei province, and rapidly spreading to the rest of the world. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) can be characterized as a pandemic. During COVID-19 several immunological alterations have been observed: in plasma of severe patients, inflammatory cytokines are at a much higher concentration ("cytokine storm"). These aspects are associated with pulmonary inflammation and parenchymal infiltrates with an extensive lung tissue damage in COVID-19 patients. To date, clinical evidence and guidelines based on reliable data and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for the treatment of COVID-19 are lacking. In the absence of definitive management protocols, many treatments are currently being evaluated worldwide. Some of these options were soon abandoned due to ineffectiveness, while others showed promising results. As for ventilatory strategies, at the moment there are still no consistent data published about the different approaches and how they may influence disease progression. What will probably represent the real solution to this pandemic is the identification of a safe and effective vaccine, for which enormous efforts and investments are being put in place. This review will summarize the state-of-the-art of COVID-19 current treatment options and those potentially available in the future, as well as high flow oxygen therapy and non-invasive mechanical ventilation approaches.
| S-EPMC7662457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Different clinical presentations in COVID-19 are described to date, from mild to severe cases. This study aims to identify different clinical phenotypes in COVID-19 pneumonia using cluster analysis and to assess the prognostic impact among identified clusters in such patients. (2) Methods: Cluster analysis including 11 phenotypic variables was performed in a large cohort of 12,066 COVID-19 patients, collected and followed-up from 1 March to 31 July 2020, from the nationwide Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI)-COVID-19 Registry. (3) Results: Of the total of 12,066 patients included in the study, most were males (7052, 58.5%) and Caucasian (10,635, 89.5%), with a mean age at diagnosis of 67 years (standard deviation (SD) 16). The main pre-admission comorbidities were arterial hypertension (6030, 50%), hyperlipidemia (4741, 39.4%) and diabetes mellitus (2309, 19.2%). The average number of days from COVID-19 symptom onset to hospital admission was 6.7 (SD 7). The triad of fever, cough, and dyspnea was present almost uniformly in all 4 clinical phenotypes identified by clustering. Cluster C1 (8737 patients, 72.4%) was the largest, and comprised patients with the triad alone. Cluster C2 (1196 patients, 9.9%) also presented with ageusia and anosmia; cluster C3 (880 patients, 7.3%) also had arthromyalgia, headache, and sore throat; and cluster C4 (1253 patients, 10.4%) also manifested with diarrhea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Compared to each other, cluster C1 presented the highest in-hospital mortality (24.1% vs. 4.3% vs. 14.7% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001). The multivariate study identified age, gender (male), body mass index (BMI), arterial hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), ischemic cardiopathy, chronic heart failure, chronic hepatopathy, Charlson's index, heart rate and respiratory rate upon admission >20 bpm, lower PaO2/FiO2 at admission, higher levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and the phenotypic cluster as independent factors for in-hospital death. (4) Conclusions: The present study identified 4 phenotypic clusters in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, which predicted the in-hospital prognosis of clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC7693215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) has increasingly been used in the management of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, but questions remain about the utility, safety, and outcome benefit of NIRS strategies. We identified two randomised controlled trials and 83 observational studies, compromising 13 931 patients, that examined the effects of NIRS modalities-high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure-on patients with COVID-19. Of 5120 patients who were candidates for full treatment escalation, 1880 (37%) progressed to invasive mechanical ventilation and 3658 of 4669 (78%) survived to study end. Survival was 30% among the 1050 patients for whom NIRS was the stated ceiling of treatment. The two randomised controlled trials indicate superiority of non-invasive ventilation over high-flow nasal oxygen in reducing the need for intubation. Reported complication rates were low. Overall, the studies indicate that NIRS in patients with COVID-19 is safe, improves resource utilisation, and might be associated with better outcomes. To guide clinical decision making, prospective, randomised studies are needed to address timing of intervention, optimal use of NIRS modalities-alone or in combination-and validation of tools such as oxygenation indices, response to a trial of NIRS, and inflammatory markers as predictors of treatment success.
| S-EPMC8577844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused the relocation of huge financial resources to departments dedicated to infected patients, at the expense of those suffering from other pathologies.AimTo compare clinical features and outcomes in COVID-19 pneumonia and non-COVID-19 pneumonia patients.Patients and methods53 patients (35 males, mean age 61.5 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia and 50 patients (32 males, mean age 72.7 years) with non-COVID-19 pneumonia, consecutively admitted between March and May 2020 were included. Clinical, laboratory and radiological data at admission were analyzed. Duration of hospitalization and mortality rates were evaluated.ResultsAmong the non-COVID patients, mean age, presence of comorbidities (neurological diseases, chronic kidney disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), Charlson Comorbidity Index and risk factors (tobacco use and protracted length of stay in geriatric healthcare facilities) were higher than in COVID patients. The non-COVID-19 pneumonia group showed a higher (24% vs. 17%), although not statistically significant in-hospital mortality rate; the average duration of hospitalization was longer for COVID patients (30 vs. 9 days, p = .0001).ConclusionsIn the early stages of the COVID pandemic, our centre noted no statistical difference in unadjusted in-hospital mortality between COVID and non-COVID patients. Non-COVID patients had higher Charlson Comorbidity Scores, reflecting a greater disease burden in this population.Key MessagesIn March 2020, the COVID-19 disease was declared a pandemic, with enormous consequences for the organization of health systems and in terms of human lives; this has caused the relocation of huge financial resources to departments dedicated to infected patients, at the expense of those suffering from other pathologies.Few published reports have compared COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In our study, performed in a geographic area with a low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, we found few statistically significant differences in terms of clinical characteristics between the two groups analyzed.In the early stages of the COVID pandemic, our centre noted no statistical difference in unadjusted in-hospital mortality between COVID and non-COVID patients. Non-COVID patients had higher Charlson Comorbidity Scores, reflecting a greater disease burden in this population.
| S-EPMC8648033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: Treatment with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is frequent. Shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds led clinicians to deliver NIV also outside ICUs. Data about the use of NIV in COVID-19 is limited.Objectives: To describe the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 treated with NIV outside the ICUs. To investigate the factors associated with NIV failure (need for intubation or death).Methods: In this prospective, single-day observational study, we enrolled adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with NIV outside the ICU from 31 hospitals in Lombardy, Italy.Results: We collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics, ventilatory management, and patient outcomes. Of 8,753 patients with COVID-19 present in the hospitals on the study day, 909 (10%) were receiving NIV outside the ICU. A majority of patients (778/909; 85%) patients were treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which was delivered by helmet in 617 (68%) patients. NIV failed in 300 patients (37.6%), whereas 498 (62.4%) patients were discharged alive without intubation. Overall mortality was 25%. NIV failure occurred in 152/284 (53%) patients with an arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio <150 mm Hg. Higher C-reactive protein and lower PaO2/FiO2 and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.Conclusions: The use of NIV outside the ICUs was common in COVID-19, with a predominant use of helmet CPAP, with a rate of success >60% and close to 75% in full-treatment patients. C-reactive protein, PaO2/FiO2, and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04382235).
| S-EPMC8456729 | biostudies-literature