Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

26 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Outcomes of COVID-19 patients intubated after failure of non-invasive ventilation: a multicenter observational study.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Boscolo A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8421335 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.

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

Parasternal intercostal muscle thickening as a predictor of non-invasive ventilation failure in patients with COVID-19.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC9040441 | biostudies-literature

Association between obesity and mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation: a multicenter retrospective observational study.

Project description:This study aimed to determine whether obesity and disease outcomes are associated in patients with critically-ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). This retrospective observational study using Japanese multicenter registry data included COVID-19 patients who required IMV and were discharged between January and September 2020. The patients were divided into the obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25 kg/m2) and nonobese (BMI < 25 kg/m2) groups. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between obesity and disease outcomes. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; the secondary outcome was venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) implementation. Altogether, 477 patients were enrolled (obese, n = 235, median BMI, 28.2 kg/m2; nonobese, n = 242, median BMI, 22.4 kg/m2). Obesity was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality in the unadjusted logistic regression model (odds ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.97; p = 0.033), but not with mortality in the adjusted logistic regression model using age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index as covariates (p = 0.564). Obesity was not associated with VV-ECMO implementation in both unadjusted and adjusted models (unadjusted, p = 0.074; adjusted, p = 0.695). Obesity was not associated with outcomes in COVID-19 patients requiring IMV. Obesity may not be a risk factor for poor outcomes in these patients.

| S-EPMC10366113 | biostudies-literature

Early extubation with immediate non-invasive ventilation versus standard weaning in intubated patients for coronavirus disease 2019: a retrospective multicenter study.

Project description:In patients intubated for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) related to novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we retrospectively compared two weaning strategies, early extubation with immediate non-invasive ventilation (NIV) versus standard weaning encompassing spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), with respect to IMV duration (primary endpoint), extubation failures and reintubations, rate of tracheostomy, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and mortality (additional endpoints). All COVID-19 adult patients, intubated for hypoxemic ARF and subsequently extubated, were enrolled. Patients were included in two groups, early extubation followed by immediate NIV application, and conventionally weaning after passing SBT. 121 patients were enrolled and analyzed, 66 early extubated and 55 conventionally weaned after passing an SBT. IMV duration was 9 [6-11] days in early extubated patients versus 11 [6-15] days in standard weaning group (p = 0.034). Extubation failures [12 (18.2%) vs. 25 (45.5%), p = 0.002] and reintubations [12 (18.2%) vs. 22 (40.0%) p = 0.009] were fewer in early extubation compared to the standard weaning groups, respectively. Rate of tracheostomy, ICU mortality, and ICU length of stay were no different between groups. Compared to standard weaning, early extubation followed by immediate NIV shortened IMV duration and reduced the rate of extubation failure and reintubation.

| S-EPMC8239031 | biostudies-literature

Prone position improves lung ventilation-perfusion matching in non-intubated COVID-19 patients: a prospective physiologic study.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC9241304 | biostudies-literature

Effects of a Chair Positioning Session on Awake Non-Intubated COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients: A Multicenter, Observational, and Pilot Study Using Lung Ultrasound.

Project description:BackgroundLUS is a validated tool for the management of COVID-19 pneumonia. Chair positioning (CP) may have beneficial effects on oxygenation and lung aeration, and may be an easier alternative to PP. This study assessed the effects of a CP session on oxygenation and lung aeration (LA) changes in non-intubated COVID-19 patients.MethodsA retrospective multicenter study was conducted in an ICU. We analyzed data from LUS exams and SpO2:FiO2 performed before/after a CP session in non-intubated COVID-19 patients. Patients were divided into groups of responders or non-responders in terms of oxygenation or LA.ResultsThirty-three patients were included in the study; fourteen (44%) were oxygenation non-responders and eighteen (56%) were oxygenation responders, while thirteen (40.6%) and nineteen (59.4%) patients were classified as LA non-responders and responders, respectively. Changes in oxygenation and LA before/after a CP session were not correlated (r = -0.19, p = 0.3, 95% CI: -0.5-0.17). The reaeration scores did not differ between oxygenation responders and non-responders (1 (-0.75-3.75) vs. 4 (-1-6), p = 0.41). The LUS score was significantly correlated with SpO2:FiO2 before a CP session (r = 0.37, p = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03-0.64) but not after (r = 0.17, p = 0.35, 95% CI: -0.19-0.50).ConclusionA CP session was associated with improved oxygenation and LA in more than half of the non-intubated COVID-19 patients.

| S-EPMC9573720 | biostudies-literature

The use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19: A systematic review.

Project description:ObjectiveGuidelines 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 methodDatabases, 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsImproving 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 numberCRD42020198410.

| S-EPMC8008782 | biostudies-literature

Outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years with respiratory failure initially treated with non-invasive ventilation in European intensive care units before and during COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been commonly used to treat acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. In this study we aimed to compare outcomes of older critically ill patients treated with NIV before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe analysed a merged cohort of older adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) due to respiratory failure. Patients were enrolled into one of two prospective observational studies: before COVID-19 (VIP2-2018 to 2019) and admitted due to COVID-19 (COVIP-March 2020 to January 2023). The outcomes included: 30-day mortality, intubation rate and NIV failure (death or intubation within 30 days).ResultsThe final cohort included 1986 patients (1292 from VIP2, 694 from COVIP) with a median age of 83 years. NIV was used as a primary mode of respiratory support in 697 participants (35.1%). ICU admission due to COVID-19 was associated with an increased 30-day mortality (65.5% vs. 36.5%, HR 2.18, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.77), more frequent intubation (36.9% vs. 17.5%, OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.99) and NIV failure (76.2% vs. 45.3%, OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.84 to 6.34) compared to non-COVID causes of respiratory failure. Sensitivity analysis after exclusion of patients in whom life supporting treatment limitation was introduced during primary NIV confirmed higher 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 (52.5% vs. 23.4%, HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.80).ConclusionThe outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years treated with NIV during COVID-19 pandemic were worse compared then those treated with NIV in the pre-pandemic era.

| S-EPMC10497468 | biostudies-literature

Prone ventilation in intubated COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Non-invasive oxygenation support in acutely hypoxemic COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: a multicenter observational retrospective study.

Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive oxygenation strategies have a prominent role in the treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While the efficacy of these therapies has been studied in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the clinical outcomes associated with oxygen masks, high-flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients remain unclear.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we used the best of nine covariate balancing algorithms on all baseline covariates in critically ill COVID-19 patients supported with > 10 L of supplemental oxygen at one of the 26 participating ICUs in Catalonia, Spain, between March 14 and April 15, 2020.ResultsOf the 1093 non-invasively oxygenated patients at ICU admission treated with one of the three stand-alone non-invasive oxygenation strategies, 897 (82%) required endotracheal intubation and 310 (28%) died during the ICU stay. High-flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula (n = 439) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 101) were associated with a lower rate of endotracheal intubation (70% and 88%, respectively) than oxygen masks (n = 553 and 91% intubated), p < 0.001. Compared to oxygen masks, high-flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula was associated with lower ICU mortality (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.58-0.98), and the hazard ratio for ICU mortality was 1.21 [95% CI 0.80-1.83] for non-invasive mechanical ventilation.ConclusionIn critically ill COVID-19 ICU patients and, in the absence of conclusive data, high-flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula may be the approach of choice as the primary non-invasive oxygenation support strategy.

| S-EPMC8822661 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data