Effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in COVID‐19 related‐acute respiratory distress syndrome
Introduction During this long COVID‐19 pandemic outbreak, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are being widely used to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). As for now, data on the efficacy of NIV in COVID‐19 acute respirator...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The clinical respiratory journal 2021-07, Vol.15 (7), p.779-787 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 787 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 779 |
container_title | The clinical respiratory journal |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Menzella, Francesco Barbieri, Chiara Fontana, Matteo Scelfo, Chiara Castagnetti, Claudia Ghidoni, Giulia Ruggiero, Patrizia Livrieri, Francesco Piro, Roberto Ghidorsi, Luca Montanari, Gloria Gibellini, Giorgia Casalini, Eleonora Falco, Francesco Catellani, Chiara Facciolongo, Nicola |
description | Introduction
During this long COVID‐19 pandemic outbreak, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are being widely used to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). As for now, data on the efficacy of NIV in COVID‐19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are lacking, and for this reason it is extremely important to accurately determine the outcomes of this strategy. This study aimed to evaluate clinical data and outcomes of NIV in patients with COVID‐19 ARDS.
Matherials and methods
Seventy‐nine consecutive patients with sudden worsening of respiratory failure were evaluated. All patients (71% male) had a confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and signs, symptoms and radiological findings compatible with COVID‐19 pneumonia and all of them underwent a trial of NIV. Primary outcomes were NIV success and failure defined by intubation and mortality rate. Secondary outcome was the duration of NIV.
Results
NIV was successful in 38 (48.1%) patients (Table 1). EOT was necessary in 21 patients (26.6%). Death occurred in 20 patients (25.3%). In the group of patients having failed a trial with NIV and then being intubated, compared to those who continued NIV, there was no higher mortality rate. By evaluating the ICU survival outcome of the subgroup of patients intubated after NIV, 57% of the patients were discharged and 43% died.
Conclusion
Previous studies conducted on patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation showed higher mortality rate than the present study. Our data showed that NIV can avoid intubation in almost half of the patients. Therefore, this data could reassure clinicians who would consider using NIV in COVID‐19 ARDS‐related treatment. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/crj.13361 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8251172</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2502203440</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4431-8ce2d3029bf3e1333f101f6cb93df99984c59ece9bbb1b497f437f14af045c733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kctqGzEUhkVJaByni75AGcgmXTjWbTyjTSE4bi4YAiEJ2QmN5qiVGUuONOPiXR6hz5gniRy7Ji1UG-kcfXycw4_QZ4JPSTpDHWanhLER-YB6pMjpYCTE497uXZIDdBjjDOO8LFj-ER0wVtCypLSH6okxoFu7BAcxZt5kzjvrliqmVpa6rW1Ua73LrMvGNw9X5y_Pv4nIAqQ21KlQumsh1XFhg2p9WGW1jW1Y2-LK1cHP4QjtG9VE-LS9--j---RufDmY3lxcjc-mA805I4NSA60ZpqIyDNI-zBBMzEhXgtVGCFFynQvQIKqqIhUXheGsMIQrg3muC8b66NvGu-iqOdQ6TR9UIxfBzlVYSa-s_PvH2Z_yh1_KkuaEFDQJTraC4J86iK2c26ihaZQD30VJc0wpZpzjhB7_g858F1xaL1E5YyI518KvG0oHH2MAsxuGYLnOTqbs5Ft2if3yfvod-SesBAw3wC_bwOr_Jjm-vd4oXwF5Oqca</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2553398252</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in COVID‐19 related‐acute respiratory distress syndrome</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><creator>Menzella, Francesco ; Barbieri, Chiara ; Fontana, Matteo ; Scelfo, Chiara ; Castagnetti, Claudia ; Ghidoni, Giulia ; Ruggiero, Patrizia ; Livrieri, Francesco ; Piro, Roberto ; Ghidorsi, Luca ; Montanari, Gloria ; Gibellini, Giorgia ; Casalini, Eleonora ; Falco, Francesco ; Catellani, Chiara ; Facciolongo, Nicola</creator><creatorcontrib>Menzella, Francesco ; Barbieri, Chiara ; Fontana, Matteo ; Scelfo, Chiara ; Castagnetti, Claudia ; Ghidoni, Giulia ; Ruggiero, Patrizia ; Livrieri, Francesco ; Piro, Roberto ; Ghidorsi, Luca ; Montanari, Gloria ; Gibellini, Giorgia ; Casalini, Eleonora ; Falco, Francesco ; Catellani, Chiara ; Facciolongo, Nicola</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
During this long COVID‐19 pandemic outbreak, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are being widely used to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). As for now, data on the efficacy of NIV in COVID‐19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are lacking, and for this reason it is extremely important to accurately determine the outcomes of this strategy. This study aimed to evaluate clinical data and outcomes of NIV in patients with COVID‐19 ARDS.
Matherials and methods
Seventy‐nine consecutive patients with sudden worsening of respiratory failure were evaluated. All patients (71% male) had a confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and signs, symptoms and radiological findings compatible with COVID‐19 pneumonia and all of them underwent a trial of NIV. Primary outcomes were NIV success and failure defined by intubation and mortality rate. Secondary outcome was the duration of NIV.
Results
NIV was successful in 38 (48.1%) patients (Table 1). EOT was necessary in 21 patients (26.6%). Death occurred in 20 patients (25.3%). In the group of patients having failed a trial with NIV and then being intubated, compared to those who continued NIV, there was no higher mortality rate. By evaluating the ICU survival outcome of the subgroup of patients intubated after NIV, 57% of the patients were discharged and 43% died.
Conclusion
Previous studies conducted on patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation showed higher mortality rate than the present study. Our data showed that NIV can avoid intubation in almost half of the patients. Therefore, this data could reassure clinicians who would consider using NIV in COVID‐19 ARDS‐related treatment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1752-6981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1752-699X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/crj.13361</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33728822</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>acute respiratory failure ; ARDS ; Continuous positive airway pressure ; COVID-19 ; endotracheal intubation ; Intubation ; Mortality ; noninvasive ventilation ; Original ; Respiratory distress syndrome ; Respiratory failure ; Ventilators</subject><ispartof>The clinical respiratory journal, 2021-07, Vol.15 (7), p.779-787</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4431-8ce2d3029bf3e1333f101f6cb93df99984c59ece9bbb1b497f437f14af045c733</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4431-8ce2d3029bf3e1333f101f6cb93df99984c59ece9bbb1b497f437f14af045c733</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3950-5789</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fcrj.13361$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fcrj.13361$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fcrj.13361$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33728822$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Menzella, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbieri, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fontana, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scelfo, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castagnetti, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghidoni, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruggiero, Patrizia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Livrieri, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piro, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghidorsi, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montanari, Gloria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibellini, Giorgia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casalini, Eleonora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Falco, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catellani, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Facciolongo, Nicola</creatorcontrib><title>Effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in COVID‐19 related‐acute respiratory distress syndrome</title><title>The clinical respiratory journal</title><addtitle>Clin Respir J</addtitle><description>Introduction
During this long COVID‐19 pandemic outbreak, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are being widely used to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). As for now, data on the efficacy of NIV in COVID‐19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are lacking, and for this reason it is extremely important to accurately determine the outcomes of this strategy. This study aimed to evaluate clinical data and outcomes of NIV in patients with COVID‐19 ARDS.
Matherials and methods
Seventy‐nine consecutive patients with sudden worsening of respiratory failure were evaluated. All patients (71% male) had a confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and signs, symptoms and radiological findings compatible with COVID‐19 pneumonia and all of them underwent a trial of NIV. Primary outcomes were NIV success and failure defined by intubation and mortality rate. Secondary outcome was the duration of NIV.
Results
NIV was successful in 38 (48.1%) patients (Table 1). EOT was necessary in 21 patients (26.6%). Death occurred in 20 patients (25.3%). In the group of patients having failed a trial with NIV and then being intubated, compared to those who continued NIV, there was no higher mortality rate. By evaluating the ICU survival outcome of the subgroup of patients intubated after NIV, 57% of the patients were discharged and 43% died.
Conclusion
Previous studies conducted on patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation showed higher mortality rate than the present study. Our data showed that NIV can avoid intubation in almost half of the patients. Therefore, this data could reassure clinicians who would consider using NIV in COVID‐19 ARDS‐related treatment.</description><subject>acute respiratory failure</subject><subject>ARDS</subject><subject>Continuous positive airway pressure</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>endotracheal intubation</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>noninvasive ventilation</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Respiratory distress syndrome</subject><subject>Respiratory failure</subject><subject>Ventilators</subject><issn>1752-6981</issn><issn>1752-699X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kctqGzEUhkVJaByni75AGcgmXTjWbTyjTSE4bi4YAiEJ2QmN5qiVGUuONOPiXR6hz5gniRy7Ji1UG-kcfXycw4_QZ4JPSTpDHWanhLER-YB6pMjpYCTE497uXZIDdBjjDOO8LFj-ER0wVtCypLSH6okxoFu7BAcxZt5kzjvrliqmVpa6rW1Ua73LrMvGNw9X5y_Pv4nIAqQ21KlQumsh1XFhg2p9WGW1jW1Y2-LK1cHP4QjtG9VE-LS9--j---RufDmY3lxcjc-mA805I4NSA60ZpqIyDNI-zBBMzEhXgtVGCFFynQvQIKqqIhUXheGsMIQrg3muC8b66NvGu-iqOdQ6TR9UIxfBzlVYSa-s_PvH2Z_yh1_KkuaEFDQJTraC4J86iK2c26ihaZQD30VJc0wpZpzjhB7_g858F1xaL1E5YyI518KvG0oHH2MAsxuGYLnOTqbs5Ft2if3yfvod-SesBAw3wC_bwOr_Jjm-vd4oXwF5Oqca</recordid><startdate>202107</startdate><enddate>202107</enddate><creator>Menzella, Francesco</creator><creator>Barbieri, Chiara</creator><creator>Fontana, Matteo</creator><creator>Scelfo, Chiara</creator><creator>Castagnetti, Claudia</creator><creator>Ghidoni, Giulia</creator><creator>Ruggiero, Patrizia</creator><creator>Livrieri, Francesco</creator><creator>Piro, Roberto</creator><creator>Ghidorsi, Luca</creator><creator>Montanari, Gloria</creator><creator>Gibellini, Giorgia</creator><creator>Casalini, Eleonora</creator><creator>Falco, Francesco</creator><creator>Catellani, Chiara</creator><creator>Facciolongo, Nicola</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3950-5789</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202107</creationdate><title>Effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in COVID‐19 related‐acute respiratory distress syndrome</title><author>Menzella, Francesco ; Barbieri, Chiara ; Fontana, Matteo ; Scelfo, Chiara ; Castagnetti, Claudia ; Ghidoni, Giulia ; Ruggiero, Patrizia ; Livrieri, Francesco ; Piro, Roberto ; Ghidorsi, Luca ; Montanari, Gloria ; Gibellini, Giorgia ; Casalini, Eleonora ; Falco, Francesco ; Catellani, Chiara ; Facciolongo, Nicola</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4431-8ce2d3029bf3e1333f101f6cb93df99984c59ece9bbb1b497f437f14af045c733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>acute respiratory failure</topic><topic>ARDS</topic><topic>Continuous positive airway pressure</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>endotracheal intubation</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>noninvasive ventilation</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Respiratory distress syndrome</topic><topic>Respiratory failure</topic><topic>Ventilators</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Menzella, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbieri, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fontana, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scelfo, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castagnetti, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghidoni, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruggiero, Patrizia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Livrieri, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piro, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghidorsi, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montanari, Gloria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibellini, Giorgia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casalini, Eleonora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Falco, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Catellani, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Facciolongo, Nicola</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The clinical respiratory journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Menzella, Francesco</au><au>Barbieri, Chiara</au><au>Fontana, Matteo</au><au>Scelfo, Chiara</au><au>Castagnetti, Claudia</au><au>Ghidoni, Giulia</au><au>Ruggiero, Patrizia</au><au>Livrieri, Francesco</au><au>Piro, Roberto</au><au>Ghidorsi, Luca</au><au>Montanari, Gloria</au><au>Gibellini, Giorgia</au><au>Casalini, Eleonora</au><au>Falco, Francesco</au><au>Catellani, Chiara</au><au>Facciolongo, Nicola</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in COVID‐19 related‐acute respiratory distress syndrome</atitle><jtitle>The clinical respiratory journal</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Respir J</addtitle><date>2021-07</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>779</spage><epage>787</epage><pages>779-787</pages><issn>1752-6981</issn><eissn>1752-699X</eissn><abstract>Introduction
During this long COVID‐19 pandemic outbreak, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are being widely used to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). As for now, data on the efficacy of NIV in COVID‐19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are lacking, and for this reason it is extremely important to accurately determine the outcomes of this strategy. This study aimed to evaluate clinical data and outcomes of NIV in patients with COVID‐19 ARDS.
Matherials and methods
Seventy‐nine consecutive patients with sudden worsening of respiratory failure were evaluated. All patients (71% male) had a confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and signs, symptoms and radiological findings compatible with COVID‐19 pneumonia and all of them underwent a trial of NIV. Primary outcomes were NIV success and failure defined by intubation and mortality rate. Secondary outcome was the duration of NIV.
Results
NIV was successful in 38 (48.1%) patients (Table 1). EOT was necessary in 21 patients (26.6%). Death occurred in 20 patients (25.3%). In the group of patients having failed a trial with NIV and then being intubated, compared to those who continued NIV, there was no higher mortality rate. By evaluating the ICU survival outcome of the subgroup of patients intubated after NIV, 57% of the patients were discharged and 43% died.
Conclusion
Previous studies conducted on patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation showed higher mortality rate than the present study. Our data showed that NIV can avoid intubation in almost half of the patients. Therefore, this data could reassure clinicians who would consider using NIV in COVID‐19 ARDS‐related treatment.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>33728822</pmid><doi>10.1111/crj.13361</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3950-5789</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | ISSN: 1752-6981 |
ispartof | The clinical respiratory journal, 2021-07, Vol.15 (7), p.779-787 |
issn | 1752-6981 1752-699X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8251172 |
source | Wiley Online Library Open Access |
subjects | acute respiratory failure ARDS Continuous positive airway pressure COVID-19 endotracheal intubation Intubation Mortality noninvasive ventilation Original Respiratory distress syndrome Respiratory failure Ventilators |
title | Effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in COVID‐19 related‐acute respiratory distress syndrome |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T13%3A45%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effectiveness%20of%20noninvasive%20ventilation%20in%20COVID%E2%80%9019%20related%E2%80%90acute%20respiratory%20distress%20syndrome&rft.jtitle=The%20clinical%20respiratory%20journal&rft.au=Menzella,%20Francesco&rft.date=2021-07&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=779&rft.epage=787&rft.pages=779-787&rft.issn=1752-6981&rft.eissn=1752-699X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/crj.13361&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E2502203440%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2553398252&rft_id=info:pmid/33728822&rfr_iscdi=true |