Detailed Analysis of Primary Non-invasive Respiratory Support and Outcomes of Subjects With COVID-19 Acute Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure

Background The role of non-invasive (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or Non-invasive ventilation (NIV)) respiratory support (NIRS) as a primary oxygenation strategy for COVID-19 patients with acute severe hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF), as opposed to invasive mechanical ventilation (invasive-MV), is uncertain. While NIRS may prevent complications related to invasive MV, prolonged NIRS and delays in intubation may lead to adverse outcomes. This study was conducted to assess the role of NIRS in COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure and to explore the variables associated with NRIS failure. Methods This is a single-center, observational study of two distinct waves of severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Patients initially managed with non-invasive respiratory support with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure were included. Demographics, comorbidities, admission laboratory variables, and ICU admission scores were extracted from electronic health records. Univariate and multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to summarise survival between the ventilatory and time-to-intubation groups. Results There were 291 patients, of which 232 were managed with NIRS as an initial ventilation strategy. There was a high incidence of failure (48.7%). Admission APACHE II score, SOFA score, HACOR score, ROX index, and PaO2/FiO2 were all predictive of NIRS failure. Daily (days 1-4) HACOR scores and ROX index measurements highly predicted NIRS failure. Late NIRS failure (>24 hours) was independently associated with increased mortality (44%). Conclusion NIRS is effective as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients with AHRF. However, failure, particularly delayed failure, is associated with significant mortality. Early prediction of NIRS failure may prevent adverse outcomes

Detailed analysis of primary non-invasive respiratory support and outcomes of subjects with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

Background: the role of non-invasive (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or Non-invasive ventilation (NIV)) respiratory support (NIRS) as a primary oxygenation strategy for COVID-19 patients with acute severe hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF), as opposed to invasive mechanical ventilation (invasive-MV), is uncertain. While NIRS may prevent complications related to invasive MV, prolonged NIRS and delays in intubation may lead to adverse outcomes. This study was conducted to assess the role of NIRS in COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure and to explore the variables associated with NRIS failure. Methods: this is a single-center, observational study of two distinct waves of severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Patients initially managed with non-invasive respiratory support with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure were included. Demographics, comorbidities, admission laboratory variables, and ICU admission scores were extracted from electronic health records. Univariate and multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to summarise survival between the ventilatory and time-to-intubation groups. Results: there were 291 patients, of which 232 were managed with NIRS as an initial ventilation strategy. There was a high incidence of failure (48.7%). Admission APACHE II score, SOFA score, HACOR score, ROX index, and PaO2/FiO2 were all predictive of NIRS failure. Daily (days 1-4) HACOR scores and ROX index measurements highly predicted NIRS failure. Late NIRS failure (&gt;24 hours) was independently associated with increased mortality (44%). Conclusion: NIRS is effective as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients with AHRF. However, failure, particularly delayed failure, is associated with significant mortality. Early prediction of NIRS failure may prevent adverse outcomes.</p

Dynamic blood oxygen indices in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure: a cohort study

Background: acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a hallmark of severe COVID-19 pneumonia and often requires supplementary oxygen therapy. Critically ill COVID-19 patients may require invasive mechanical ventilation, which carries significant morbidity and mortality. Understanding of the relationship between dynamic changes in blood oxygen indices and clinical variables is lacking. We evaluated the changes in blood oxygen indices-PaO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, oxygen content (CaO2) and oxygen extraction ratio (O2ER) in COVID-19 patients through the first 30-days of intensive care unit admission and explored relationships with clinical outcomes.Methods and findings: we performed a retrospective observational cohort study of all adult COVID-19 patients in a single institution requiring invasive mechanical ventilation between March 2020 and March 2021. We collected baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes and blood oxygen indices. 36,383 blood gas data points were analysed from 184 patients over 30-days. Median participant age was 59.5 (IQR 51.0, 67.0), BMI 30.0 (IQR 25.2, 35.5) and the majority were men (62.5%) of white ethnicity (70.1%). Median duration of mechanical ventilation was 15-days (IQR 8, 25). Hospital survival at 30-days was 72.3%. Non-survivors exhibited significantly lower PaO2 throughout intensive care unit admission: day one to day 30 averaged mean difference -0.52 kPa (95% CI: -0.59 to -0.46, p&lt;0.01). Non-survivors exhibited a significantly lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio with an increased separation over time: day one to day 30 averaged mean difference -5.64 (95% CI: -5.85 to -5.43, p&lt;0.01). While all patients had sub-physiological CaO2, non-survivors exhibited significantly higher values. Non-survivors also exhibited significantly lower oxygen extraction ratio with an averaged mean difference of -0.08 (95% CI: -0.09 to -0.07, p&lt;0.01) across day one to day 30.Conclusions: as a novel cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure, COVID-19 offers a unique opportunity to study a homogenous cohort of patients with hypoxaemia. In mechanically ventilated adult COVID-19 patients, blood oxygen indices are abnormal with substantial divergence in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and oxygen extraction ratio between survivors and non-survivors. Despite having higher CaO2 values, non-survivors appear to extract less oxygen implying impaired oxygen utilisation. Further exploratory studies are warranted to evaluate and improve oxygen extraction which may help to improve outcomes in severe hypoxaemic mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.</p

Body Mass Index and clinical outcome of severe COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure: unravelling the “obesity paradox” phenomenon

Background and aimsAlthough obesity have been generally shown to be an independent risk factor for poor outcomes in COVID-19 infection, some studies demonstrate a paradoxical protective effect (“obesity paradox”). This study examines the influence of obesity categories on clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit with acute hypoxic respiratory failure requiring either non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsThis is a single centre, retrospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit between 03/2020 to 03/2021. Patients were grouped according to the NICE Body Mass Index (BMI) category. Admission variables including age, sex, comorbidities, and ICU severity indices (APACHE-II, SOFA and PaO2/FiO2) were collected. Data were compared between BMI groups for outcomes such as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), renal replacement therapy (RRT) and 28-day and overall hospital mortality.Results340 patients were identified and of those 333 patients had their BMI documented. Just over half of patients (53%) had obesity. Those with extreme obesity (obesity groups II and III) were younger with fewer comorbidities, but were more hypoxaemic at presentation, than the healthy BMI group. Although non-significant, obesity groups II and III paradoxically showed a lower in-hospital mortality than the healthy weight group. However, adjusted (age, sex, APACHE-II and CCI) competing risk regression analysis showed three-times higher mortality in obese category I (sub-distribution hazard ratio = 3.32 (95% CI 1.30–8.46), p = 0.01) and a trend to higher mortality across all obesity groups compared to the healthy weight group.ConclusionsIn this cohort, those with obesity were at higher risk of mortality after adjustment for confounders. We did not identify an “obesity paradox” in this cohort. The obesity paradox may be explained by confounding factors such as younger age, fewer comorbidities, and less severe organ failures. The impact of obesity on indicators of morbidity including likelihood of requirement for organ support measures was not conclusively demonstrated and requires further scrutiny.<br/