The use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Guidelines from different regions on the use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19 have generally been inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and availability of guidelines, and whether non-invasive ventilation in the early stages of the pandemic is of importance.Design and method
Databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, as well as websites of international organizations and gray literature, were searched up to June 23, 2020. The reference lists of eligible papers were also hand-searched.Results
A total of 26 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, the guidelines' methodological quality was low. Among six domains, Rigour of Development and Editorial Independence were of the lowest quality. Given the lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials and the great variation between different regions, recommendations for non-invasive ventilation have generated considerable debate regarding the early stages of COVID-19.Conclusions
Improving the methodological quality of the guidelines should be a goal with regard to future pandemics. Additionally, better-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to resolve contradictions regarding the impact of non-invasive ventilation.Prospero registration number
CRD42020198410.
SUBMITTER: Wang Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8008782 | 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:PURPOSE:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer the question 'In adults with respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation for more than 24 h, does a weaning strategy with early extubation to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation weaning reduce all-cause hospital mortality?' METHODS:We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation, compared to invasive ventilation, as a weaning strategy in adults mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h. The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases were searched from inception to February 2018. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality (30, 60, 90 and 180 days), quality of life, duration of invasive ventilation, weaning failure, length of stay [intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital] and adverse events. RESULTS:Twenty-five relevant studies involving 1609 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to risk of performance and detection bias. Mortality at hospital discharge was lower in the NIV weaning group compared to the invasive weaning group [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% highest density interval (HDI) 0.29-0.89]. Subgroup analyses showed lower pooled mortality at hospital discharge rates in NIV weaning than those in the control group in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (pooled OR 0.43, 95% HDI 0.13-0.81) and the effect is less certain in the mixed ICU population (pooled OR 0.88, 95% HDI 0.25-1.48). NIV weaning reduced the duration of invasive ventilation in patients [standardised mean difference (SMD) -?1.34, 95% HDI -?1.92 to -?0.77] and ICU length of stay (SMD -?0.70, 95% HDI -?0.94 to -?0.46). Reported rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) were lower in the NIV group. NIV weaning did not reduce overall hospital length of stay or long-term mortality. There were insufficient data to compare other adverse events and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:The use of NIV in weaning from mechanical ventilation decreases hospital mortality, the incidence of VAP and ICU length of stay. NIV as a weaning strategy appears to be most beneficial in patients with COPD.
| S-EPMC6280833 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) delivered by helmet has been used for respiratory support of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to compare helmet NIV with usual care versus usual care alone to reduce mortality.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel randomised controlled trial that compares helmet NIV with usual care to usual care alone in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 320 patients will be enrolled in this study. The primary outcome is 28-day all-cause mortality. The primary outcome will be compared between the two study groups in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. An interim analysis will be conducted for both safety and effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationApprovals are obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and meetings.Trial registration numberNCT04477668.
| S-EPMC8392742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUNDThis systematic review aimed to assess inhaled drug delivery in mechanically ventilated patients or in animal models. Whole lung and regional deposition and the impact of the ventilator circuit, the artificial airways and the administration technique for aerosol delivery were analyzed.METHODSIn vivo studies assessing lung deposition during invasive mechanical ventilation were selected based on a systematic search among four databases. Two investigators independently assessed the eligibility and the risk of bias.RESULTSTwenty-six clinical and ten experimental studies were included. Between 30% and 43% of nominal drug dose was lost to the circuit in ventilated patients. Whole lung deposition of up to 16% and 38% of nominal dose (proportion of drug charged in the device) were reported with nebulizers and metered-dose inhalers, respectively. A penetration index inferior to 1 observed in scintigraphic studies indicated major proximal deposition. However, substantial concentrations of antibiotics were measured in the epithelial lining fluid (887 (406-12,819) ?g/mL of amikacin) of infected patients and in sub-pleural specimens (e.g., 197 ?g/g of amikacin) dissected from infected piglets, suggesting a significant distal deposition. The administration technique varied among studies and may explain a degree of the variability of deposition that was observed.CONCLUSIONSLung deposition was lower than 20% of nominal dose delivered with nebulizers and mostly occurred in proximal airways. Further studies are needed to link substantial concentrations of antibiotics in infected pulmonary fluids to pulmonary deposition. The administration technique with nebulizers should be improved in ventilated patients in order to ensure an efficient but safe, feasible and reproducible technique.
| S-EPMC5651640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety profiles of prone ventilation among intubated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remain unclear. The primary objective was to examine the effect of prone ventilation on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) in intubated COVID-19 patients.MethodsDatabases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception until March 2021. Case reports and case series were excluded.ResultsEleven studies (n = 606 patients) were eligible. Prone ventilation significantly improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio (studies: 8, n = 579, mean difference 46.75, 95% CI 33.35‒60.15, p < 0.00001; evidence: very low) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (studies: 3, n = 432, mean difference 1.67, 95% CI 1.08‒2.26, p < 0.00001; evidence: ow), but not the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) (studies: 5, n = 396, mean difference 2.45, 95% CI 2.39‒7.30, p = 0.32; evidence: very low), mortality rate (studies: 1, n = 215, Odds Ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32‒1.33, p = 0.24; evidence: very low), or number of patients discharged alive (studies: 1, n = 43, Odds Ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.72‒3.08, p = 0.28; evidence: very low).ConclusionProne ventilation improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SpO2 in intubated COVID-19 patients. Given the substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, more randomized- controlled trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence, and to examine the adverse events of prone ventilation.
| S-EPMC9259191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Critically ill patients admitted to hospital following SARS-CoV-2 infection often experience hypoxic respiratory failure and a proportion require invasive mechanical ventilation to maintain adequate oxygenation. The combination of prone positioning and non-invasive ventilation in conscious patients may have a role in improving oxygenation. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of prone positioning in spontaneously ventilating patients receiving non-invasive ventilation admitted to the intensive care. Clinical data of 81 patients admitted with COVID 19 pneumonia and acute hypoxic respiratory failure were retrieved from electronic medical records and examined. Patients who had received prone positioning in combination with non-invasive ventilation were identified. A total of 20 patients received prone positioning in conjunction with non-invasive ventilation. This resulted in improved oxygenation as measured by a change in PaO 2/FiO 2 (P/F) ratio of 28.7 mmHg while prone, without significant change in heart rate or respiratory rate. Patients on average underwent 5 cycles with a median duration of 3 hours. There were no reported deaths, 7 of the 20 patients (35%) failed non-invasive ventilation and subsequently required intubation and mechanical ventilation. In our cohort of 20 COVID-19 patients with moderate acute hypoxic respiratory failure, prone positioning with non-invasive ventilation resulted in improved oxygenation. Prone positioning with non-invasive ventilation may be considered as an early therapeutic intervention in COVID-19 patients with moderate acute hypoxic respiratory failure.
| S-EPMC7578762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The efficacy of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection remains controversial. Current literature mainly examined efficacy, safety and potential predictors of NIV failure provided out of the intensive care unit (ICU). On the contrary, the outcomes of ICU patients, intubated after NIV failure, remain to be explored. The aims of the present study are: (1) investigating in-hospital mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ICU patients receiving endotracheal intubation after NIV failure and (2) assessing whether the length of NIV application affects patient survival. This observational multicenter study included all consecutive COVID-19 adult patients, admitted into the twenty-five ICUs of the COVID-19 VENETO ICU network (February-April 2020), who underwent endotracheal intubation after NIV failure. Among the 704 patients admitted to ICU during the study period, 280 (40%) presented the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The median age was 69 [60-76] years; 219 patients (78%) were male. In-hospital mortality was 43%. Only the length of NIV application before ICU admission (OR 2.03 (95% CI 1.06-4.98), p = 0.03) and age (OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.04-1.33), p < 0.01) were identified as independent risk factors of in-hospital mortality; whilst the length of NIV after ICU admission did not affect patient outcome. In-hospital mortality of ICU patients intubated after NIV failure was 43%. Days on NIV before ICU admission and age were assessed to be potential risk factors of greater in-hospital mortality.
| S-EPMC8421335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID 19 is the most recent cause of Adult respiratory distress syndrome ARDS. Invasive mechanical ventilation IMV can support gas exchange in patients failing non-invasive ventilation, but its reported outcome is highly variable between countries. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on IMV for COVID-associated ARDS to study its outcome among different countries.MethodsCENTRAL, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched up to August 8, 2020. Studies reporting five or more patients with end point outcome for severe COVID 19 infection treated with IMV were included. The main outcome assessed was mortality. Baseline, procedural, outcome, and validity data were systematically appraised and pooled with random-effect methods. Subgroup analysis for different countries was performed. Meta-regression for the effect of study timing and patient age and were tested. Publication bias was examined. This trial was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42020190365.FindingsOur electronic search retrieved 4770 citations, 103 of which were selected for full-text review. Twenty-one studies with a combined population of 37359 patients with COVID-19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From this population, 5800 patients were treated by invasive mechanical ventilation. Out of those, 3301 patients reached an endpoint of ICU discharge or death after invasive mechanical ventilation while the rest were still in the ICU. Mortality from IMV was highly variable among the included studies ranging between 21% and 100%. Random-effect pooled estimates suggested an overall in-hospital mortality risk ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.608 to 0.797; I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis according to country of origin showed homogeneity in the 8 Chinese studies with high pooled mortality risk ratio of 0.97 (I2 = 24%, p = 0.23) (95% CI = 0.94-1.00), similar to Italy with a low pooled mortality risk ratio of 0.26 (95% CI 0.08-0.43) with homogeneity (p = 0.86) while the later larger studies coming from the USA showed pooled estimate mortality risk ratio of 0.60 (95% CI 0.43-0.76) with persistent heterogeneity (I2 = 98%, p<0.001). Meta-regression showed that outcome from IMV improved with time (p<0.001). Age had no statistically significant effect on mortality (p = 0.102). Publication bias was excluded by visualizing the funnel plot of standard error, Egger's test with p = 0.714 and Begg&Mazumdar test with p = 0.334.InterpretationThe study included the largest number of patients with outcome findings of IMV in this current pandemic. Our findings showed that the use of IMV for selected COVID 19 patients with severe ARDS carries a high mortality, but outcome has improved over the last few months and in more recent studies. The results should encourage physicians to use this facility when indicated for severely ill COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8177443 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9040441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 disproportionately affects patients with medical comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with CVD are widely prescribed 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutayl-CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), a class of lipid-lowering medications known for their pleiotropic anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. However, the relationship between statin use and COVID-19 outcomes is not fully understood. In this preliminary study, we explored the association between statin use and severe COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and in-hospital death. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 249 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 3 March 2020 to 10 April 2020 in Rhode Island, USA. Patient demographics, past medical history, current medications, and hospital course were recorded and analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine associations. After adjusting for age, sex, race, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, and obesity, statin use was significantly associated with decreased risk for IMV (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 0.45, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.20-0.99). Our results support the continued use of statins among COVID-19 patients and could have implications for future prospective studies on the management of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7559887 | biostudies-literature