Predictors of intubation in COVID-19 patients undergoing awake proning in the emergency department.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Awake prone positioning (PP) has been used to avoid intubations in hypoxic COVID-19 patients, but there is limited evidence regarding its efficacy. Moreover, clinicians have little information to identify patients at high risk of intubation despite awake PP. We sought to assess the intubation rate among patients treated with awake PP in our Emergency Department (ED) and identify predictors of need for intubation.Methods
We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted for known or suspected COVID-19 who were treated with awake PP in the ED. We excluded patients intubated in the ED. Our primary outcome was prevalence of intubation during initial hospitalization. Other outcomes were intubation within 48 h of admission and mortality. We performed classification and regression tree analysis to identify the variables most likely to predict the need for intubation.Results
We included 97 patients; 44% required intubation and 21% were intubated within 48 h of admission. Respiratory oxygenation (ROX) index and P/F (partial pressure of oxygen / fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio measured 24 h after admission were the variables most likely to predict need for intubation (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.82).Conclusions
Among COVID-19 patients treated with awake PP in the ED prior to admission, ROX index and P/F ratio, particularly 24 h after admission, may be useful tools in identifying patients at high risk of intubation.
SUBMITTER: Downing J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8188753 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveProning has been shown to improve oxygenation and mortality in certain populations of intubated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Small observational analyses of COVID-19 patients suggest awake proning may lead to clinical improvement. Data on safety and efficacy is lacking. We sought to describe the effect of proning on oxygenation in nonintubated COVID-19 patients. We also evaluated feasibility, safety, and other physiological and clinical outcomes associated with this intervention.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational cohort study of nonintubated patients with COVID-19 who underwent proning per an Emergency Department (ED) clinical protocol. Patients with mild to moderate respiratory distress were included. We calculated change in oxygenation by comparing the oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (SpO2:FiO2) during the five minutes prior to proning and first 30 min of proning. We also captured data on respiratory rate, duration of proning, need for intubation, intensive care unit admission, survival to discharge.ResultsFifty-two patients were enrolled. Thirty were excluded for not meeting protocol inclusion criteria or missing baseline oxygenation data, leaving 22 for analysis. The SpO2:FiO2 ratio increased by a median of 5 (IQR: 0-15) in the post-proning period compared to the pre-proning period (median: 298 (IQR: 263-352) vs 295 (IQR: 276-350), p = 0.01). Respiratory rate did not change significantly between time periods. No immediate adverse events occurred during proning. Five patients (23%) were intubated within 48 h of admission.ConclusionEarly, awake proning may be feasible in select COVID-19 patients and was associated with improved oxygenation.
| S-EPMC7713606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, has rapidly become a global pandemic. A major cause of morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 has been the worsening hypoxia that, if untreated, can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure. Past work has found that intubated patients with ARDS experience physiological benefits to the prone position, because it promotes better matching of pulmonary perfusion to ventilation, improved secretion clearance, and recruitment of dependent areas of the lungs. We created a systemwide multi-institutional (New York-Presbyterian Hospital enterprise) protocol for placing awake, nonintubated, emergency department patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in the prone position. In this piece, we describe the background literature and the approach we have taken at our institution as we care for a high burden of COVID-19 cases with respiratory symptoms.
| S-EPMC7283629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/materials and methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-month period (March 2010-June 2020) comparing severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to Respiratory Intensive Care Unit for non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) and subjected to awake prone position (PP) with those receiving standard care (SC). Primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate. In-hospital mortality, time to ETI, tracheostomy, length of RICU and hospital stay served as secondary outcomes. Risk factors associated to ETI among PP patients were also investigated.ResultsA total of 114 patients were included, 76 in the SC and 38 in the PP group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed greater effect of PP compared to SC on ETI rate (HR = 0.45 95% CI [0.2-0.9], p = 0.02) even after adjustment for baseline confounders (HR = 0.59 95% CI [0.3-0.94], p = 0.03). After stratification according to non-invasive respiratory support, PP showed greater significant benefit for those on High Flow Nasal Cannulae (HR = 0.34 95% CI [0.12-0.84], p = 0.04). Compared to SC, PP patients also showed a favorable difference in terms of days free from respiratory support, length of RICU and hospital stay while mortality and tracheostomy rate were not significantly different.ConclusionsProne positioning in awake and spontaneously breathing Covid-19 patients is feasible and associated with a reduction of intubation rate, especially in those patients undergoing HFNC. Although our results are intriguing, further randomized controlled trials are needed to answer all the open questions remaining pending about the real efficacy of PP in this setting.
| S-EPMC7983422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIntubation of patients suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is considered to be a high-risk procedure due to the aerosolization of viral particles. In an effort to minimize the risk of exposure and optimize patient care, we sought to develop, test, provide training, and implement a standardized algorithm for intubating these high-risk patients at our institution.MethodsWe developed an initial intubation algorithm, incorporating strategic use of equipment and incorporating emerging best practices. By combining simulation-based training sessions and rapid-cycle improvement methodology with physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists, and incorporating their feedback into the development, we were able to optimize the process prior to implementation. Training sessions also enabled the participants to practice the algorithm as a team. Upon completion of each training session, participants were invited to complete a brief online survey about their overall experience.ResultsAn algorithm and training system vetted by simulation and actual practice were developed. A training video and dissemination package were made available for other emergency departments to adopt. Survey results were overall positive, with 97.92% of participants feeling confident in their role in the intubation process, and many participants citing the usefulness of the multidisciplinary approach to the training.ConclusionA multidisciplinary, team-based approach to the development and training of a standardized intubation algorithm combining simulation and rapid-cycle improvement methodology is a useful, effective process to respond to rapidly evolving clinical information and experiences during a global pandemic.
| S-EPMC7390585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveTo describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsMulticenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events.ResultsThere were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3).ConclusionCompared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.
| S-EPMC9633323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to identify predictors of airway compromise among patients presenting to the emergency department with angioedema in order to develop and validate a risk score to augment clinician gestalt regarding need for intubation.MethodsRetrospective chart review of emergency department patients with a diagnosis of angioedema. After data extraction they were randomly divided into a training and test set. The training set was used to identify factors associated with intubation and to develop a model and risk score to predict intubation. The model and risk score were then applied to the test set.ResultsA total of 594 patients were included. Past medical history of hypertension, presence of shortness of breath, drooling, and anterior tongue or pharyngeal swelling were independent predictors included in our final model and risk score. The Area Under the Curve for the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve was 87.55% (83.42%-91.69%) for the training set and 86.1% (77.62%-94.60%) for the test set.ConclusionsA simple scoring algorithm may aid in predicting angioedema patients at high and low risk for intubation. External validation of this score is necessary before wide-spread adoption of this decision aid.
| S-EPMC10015633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of the patients who underwent prone positioning during their COVID-19 illness in the hospital.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingAga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.ParticipantsCOVID-19-recovered patients.InterventionsNone.Main outcomes and measuresKnowledge was assessed by five questions with a dichotomous response (yes/no). An yes response was awarded 1 score. Since there were five questions, five would be the highest score. Patients' perceptions of the therapy were assessed by four questions, each scored on a Likert scale of 5 (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree). As it had four questions, the maximum score achieved could therefore be 20. Proning practices were assessed using seven questions: four were used to calculate practice scores, whereas three were open-ended regarding the patient's experience. Each question carries a different score, and the maximum score was 8.ResultsThe study included 98 patients. The mean age of the patients was 57 years (sd, 12.2 yr). Majority of the patients were males (70.4%). 69.1% of males and 76.6% of females fell in the poor knowledge group. The poor knowledge cohort had an educational level of 48% in high school, 45.5% in graduates, and 6% in postgraduates. Compared with 56.5% of males, 73% of females preferred prone positioning. Sixty percent of those with a high school education viewed prone positioning favorably, whereas 46% of those with graduate and postgraduate did. Seventy-nine percent of males and 63% of females scored positively on the practice questionnaire. Eighty percent of graduates and postgraduates preferred proning practices to 67% of participants with high school education levels.Conclusions and relevanceOur study population had a little understanding of awake proning, found it unpleasant, and practiced for a shorter period than advised. Despite the overall negative attitude toward the position, our patients highly recommend this position to future patients.
| S-EPMC9762918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGiven the known downstream implications of choice of respiratory support on patient outcomes, all factors influencing these decisions, even those not limited to the patient, warrant close consideration. We examined the effect of emergency department (ED)-specific system factors, such as work load and census, on the use of noninvasive versus invasive respiratory support.MethodsWe conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study of all adult subjects with severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission from 5 EDs within a single urban health care system. Subject demographics, severity of illness, and the type of respiratory support used were obtained. Using continuous measures of ED census, boarding, and active management, we estimated ED work load for each subjects' ED stay. The subjects were categorized by type(s) of respiratory support used: low-flow oxygen, noninvasive respiratory support (eg, noninvasive ventilation [NIV] and/or high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]), invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation after trial of NIV/HFNC. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine system factors associated with the type of respiratory support used in the ED.ResultsA total of 634 subjects were included. Of these, 431 (70.0%) were managed on low-flow oxygen alone, 108 (17.0%) on NIV/HFNC, 54 (8.5%) on invasive mechanical ventilation directly, and 41 (6.5%) on NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED. Higher severity of illness and underlying lung disease increased the odds of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 1.05 [95% CI 1.03-1.07] and odds ratio 3.47 [95% CI 1.37-8.78], respectively). Older age decreased odds of being on invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 0.96 [95% CI 0.94-0.99]). As ED work load increased, the odds for subjects to be managed initially with NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation increased 6-8-fold.ConclusionsHigh ED work load was associated with higher odds on HFNC/NIV prior to invasive mechanical ventilation.
| S-EPMC9994335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEstimating the risk of intubation and mortality among COVID-19 patients can help clinicians triage these patients and allocate resources more efficiently. Thus, here we sought to identify the risk factors associated with intubation and intra-hospital mortality in a cohort of COVID-19 patients hospitalized due to hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF).ResultsWe included retrospectively a total of 187 patients admitted to the subintensive and intensive care units of the University Hospital "Maggiore della Carità" of Novara between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. Based on these patients' demographic characteristics, early clinical and laboratory variables, and quantitative chest computerized tomography (CT) findings, we developed two random forest (RF) models able to predict intubation and intra-hospital mortality. Variables independently associated with intubation were C-reactive protein (p < 0.001), lactate dehydrogenase level (p = 0.018) and white blood cell count (p = 0.026), while variables independently associated with mortality were age (p < 0.001), other cardiovascular diseases (p = 0.029), C-reactive protein (p = 0.002), lactate dehydrogenase level (p = 0.018), and invasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.001). On quantitative chest CT analysis, ground glass opacity, consolidation, and fibrosis resulted significantly associated with patient intubation and mortality. The major predictors for both models were the ratio between partial pressure of arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen, age, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, glycemia, CT quantitative parameters, lymphocyte count, and symptom onset.ConclusionsAltogether, our findings confirm previously reported demographic, clinical, hemato-chemical, and radiologic predictors of adverse outcome among COVID-19-associated hypoxemic ARF patients. The two newly developed RF models herein described show an overall good level of accuracy in predicting intra-hospital mortality and intubation in our study population. Thus, their future development and implementation may help not only identify patients at higher risk of deterioration more effectively but also rebalance the disproportion between resources and demand.
| S-EPMC8626752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIntubation practices changed during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect healthcare workers from transmission of disease. Our objectives were to describe intubation characteristics and outcomes for patients tested for SARS CoV-2 infection. We compared outcomes between patients testing SARS COV-2 positive with those testing negative.MethodsWe conducted a health records review using the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. We included consecutive eligible patients who presented to one of 47 EDs across Canada between March 1, 2020 and June 20, 2021, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and intubated in the ED. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing a post-intubation adverse event during the ED stay. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, intubation practices, and hospital mortality. We used descriptive statistics to summarize variables with subgroup differences examined using t tests, z tests, or chi-squared tests where appropriate with 95% CIs.ResultsOf 1720 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were intubated in the ED during the study period, 337 (19.6%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 1383 (80.4%) SARS-CoV-2 negative. SARS-CoV-2 positive patients presented to hospital with lower oxygen levels than SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (mean pulse oximeter SaO2 86 vs 94%, p < 0.001). In total, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event post-intubation. More patients in the SARS-CoV-2 positive subgroup experienced post-intubation hypoxemia (4.5 vs 2.2%, p = 0.019). In-hospital mortality was greater for patients who experienced intubation-related adverse events (43.2 vs 33.2%, p = 0.018). There was no significant difference in adverse event-associated mortality by SARS-CoV-2 status. First-pass success was achieved in 92.4% of all intubations, with no difference by SARS-CoV-2 status.ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a low risk of adverse events associated with intubation, even though hypoxemia was common in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. We observed high rates of first-pass success and low rates of inability to intubate. The limited number of adverse events precluded multivariate adjustments. Study findings should reassure emergency medicine practitioners that system modifications made to intubation processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not appear to be associated with worse outcomes compared to pre-COVID-19 practices.
| S-EPMC10075161 | biostudies-literature