Dataset Information

Assessing mortality differences across acute respiratory failure management strategies in Covid-19.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Prolonged observation could avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and related risks in patients with Covid-19 acute respiratory failure (ARF) compared to initiating early IMV. We aimed to determine the association between ARF management strategy and in-hospital mortality.

Materials and methods

Patients in the Weill Cornell Covid-19 registry who developed ARF between March 5 - March 25, 2020 were exposed to an early IMV strategy; between March 26 - April 1, 2020 to an intermediate strategy; and after April 2 to prolonged observation. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model in-hospital mortality and test an interaction between ARF management strategy and modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA).

Results

Among 632 patients with ARF, 24% of patients in the early IMV strategy died versus 28% in prolonged observation. At lower mSOFA, prolonged observation was associated with lower mortality compared to early IMV (at mSOFA = 0, HR 0.16 [95% CI 0.04-0.57]). Mortality risk increased in the prolonged observation strategy group with each point increase in mSOFA score (HR 1.29 [95% CI 1.10-1.51], p = 0.002).

Conclusion

In Covid-19 ARF, prolonged observation was associated with a mortality benefit at lower mSOFA scores, and increased mortality at higher mSOFA scores compared to early IMV.

SUBMITTER: Krishnan JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9049881 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing mortality differences across acute respiratory failure management strategies in Covid-19.

Krishnan Jamuna K JK Rajan Mangala M Baer Benjamin R BR Hoffman Katherine L KL Alshak Mark N MN Aronson Kerri I KI Goyal Parag P Ezeomah Chiomah C Hill Shanna S SS Martinez Fernando J FJ Turetz Meredith L ML Wells Martin T MT Safford Monika M MM Schenck Edward J EJ

Journal of critical care 20220428

<h4>Purpose</h4>Prolonged observation could avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and related risks in patients with Covid-19 acute respiratory failure (ARF) compared to initiating early IMV. We aimed to determine the association between ARF management strategy and in-hospital mortality.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Patients in the Weill Cornell Covid-19 registry who developed ARF between March 5 - March 25, 2020 were exposed to an early IMV strategy; between March 26 - April 1, 2020 to an ...[more]

PMID: 35490502

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies.ObjectiveTo determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Design, setting, and participantsA parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021.InterventionsAdult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days.ResultsThe trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice.MethodsUsing a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable).ResultsAgreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment.ConclusionUsing a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited.Trial registrationThe study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Dataset Information

Assessing mortality differences across acute respiratory failure management strategies in Covid-19.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Assessing mortality differences across acute respiratory failure management strategies in Covid-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets