Cargando…

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

PURPOSE: Limited 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 respir...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Forrest, Iain S., Jaladanki, Suraj K., Paranjpe, Ishan, Glicksberg, Benjamin S., Nadkarni, Girish N., Do, Ron
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8179090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34089483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01633-6
_version_ 1783703711241994240
author Forrest, Iain S.
Jaladanki, Suraj K.
Paranjpe, Ishan
Glicksberg, Benjamin S.
Nadkarni, Girish N.
Do, Ron
author_facet Forrest, Iain S.
Jaladanki, Suraj K.
Paranjpe, Ishan
Glicksberg, Benjamin S.
Nadkarni, Girish N.
Do, Ron
author_sort Forrest, Iain S.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Limited 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: NIV 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01633-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8179090
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81790902021-06-05 Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19 Forrest, Iain S. Jaladanki, Suraj K. Paranjpe, Ishan Glicksberg, Benjamin S. Nadkarni, Girish N. Do, Ron Infection Original Paper PURPOSE: Limited 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: NIV 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01633-6. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-06-05 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8179090/ /pubmed/34089483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01633-6 Text en © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Forrest, Iain S.
Jaladanki, Suraj K.
Paranjpe, Ishan
Glicksberg, Benjamin S.
Nadkarni, Girish N.
Do, Ron
Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19
title Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19
title_full Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19
title_fullStr Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19
title_short Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19
title_sort non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with covid-19
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8179090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34089483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s15010-021-01633-6
work_keys_str_mv AT forrestiains noninvasiveventilationversusmechanicalventilationinhypoxemicpatientswithcovid19
AT jaladankisurajk noninvasiveventilationversusmechanicalventilationinhypoxemicpatientswithcovid19
AT paranjpeishan noninvasiveventilationversusmechanicalventilationinhypoxemicpatientswithcovid19
AT glicksbergbenjamins noninvasiveventilationversusmechanicalventilationinhypoxemicpatientswithcovid19
AT nadkarnigirishn noninvasiveventilationversusmechanicalventilationinhypoxemicpatientswithcovid19
AT doron noninvasiveventilationversusmechanicalventilationinhypoxemicpatientswithcovid19