Effectiveness of Helmet-CPAP in mild to moderate coronavirus type 2 hypoxemia: An observational study

{"title":"Effectiveness of Helmet-CPAP in mild to moderate coronavirus type 2 hypoxemia: An observational study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2024.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To determine the relative effectiveness of Helmet-CPAP (H_CPAP) with respect to high-flow nasal cannula<span> oxygen therapy (HFNO) in avoiding greater need for intubation or mortality in a medium complexity hospital in Chile during the year 2021.</span></p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Cohort analytical study, single center.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Units other than intensive care units.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>Records of adults with mild to moderate hypoxemia<span> due to coronavirus type 2.</span></p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>None.</p></div><div><h3>Main variables of interest</h3><p>Need for intubation or mortality.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>159 patients were included in the study, with a ratio by support of 2:10 (H_CPAP:HFNO). The 46.5% were women, with no significant differences by sex according to support (<em>p</em> = 0.99, Fisher test). The APACHE II score, for HFNO, had a median of 10.5, 3.5 units higher than H_CPAP (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.01, Wilcoxon rank sum). The risk of intubation in HFNO was 42.1% and in H_CPAP 3.8%, with a significant risk reduction of 91% (95% CI: 36.9%–98.7%; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.01). APACHE II does not modify or confound the support and intubation relationship (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.2, binomial regression); however, it does confound the support and mortality relationship (<em>p</em> = 0.82, RR homogeneity test). Despite a 79.1% reduction in mortality risk with H_CPAP, this reduction was not statistically significant (<em>p</em> = 0.11, binomial regression).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p><span>The use of Helmet CPAP, when compared to HFNO, was an effective therapeutic ventilatory support strategy to reduce the risk of intubation in patients with mild to moderate </span>hypoxemia<span> caused by coronavirus type 2 in inpatient units other than intensive care. The limitations associated with the difference in size, age and severity between the arms could generate bias.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":"48 8","pages":"Pages 437-444"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173572724000602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To determine the relative effectiveness of Helmet-CPAP (H_CPAP) with respect to high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNO) in avoiding greater need for intubation or mortality in a medium complexity hospital in Chile during the year 2021.

Design

Cohort analytical study, single center.

Setting

Units other than intensive care units.

Patients

Records of adults with mild to moderate hypoxemia due to coronavirus type 2.

Interventions

None.

Main variables of interest

Need for intubation or mortality.

Results

159 patients were included in the study, with a ratio by support of 2:10 (H_CPAP:HFNO). The 46.5% were women, with no significant differences by sex according to support (p = 0.99, Fisher test). The APACHE II score, for HFNO, had a median of 10.5, 3.5 units higher than H_CPAP (p < 0.01, Wilcoxon rank sum). The risk of intubation in HFNO was 42.1% and in H_CPAP 3.8%, with a significant risk reduction of 91% (95% CI: 36.9%–98.7%; p < 0.01). APACHE II does not modify or confound the support and intubation relationship (p > 0.2, binomial regression); however, it does confound the support and mortality relationship (p = 0.82, RR homogeneity test). Despite a 79.1% reduction in mortality risk with H_CPAP, this reduction was not statistically significant (p = 0.11, binomial regression).

Conclusions

The use of Helmet CPAP, when compared to HFNO, was an effective therapeutic ventilatory support strategy to reduce the risk of intubation in patients with mild to moderate hypoxemia caused by coronavirus type 2 in inpatient units other than intensive care. The limitations associated with the difference in size, age and severity between the arms could generate bias.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
头盔-CPAP 对轻中度冠状病毒 2 型低氧血症的疗效:一项观察性研究。
目的确定在 2021 年期间,在智利的一家中型综合医院中,头盔-CPAP(H_CPAP)与高流量鼻插管供氧疗法(HFNO)在避免更多插管需求或死亡率方面的相对有效性:设计:队列分析研究,单中心:环境:重症监护室以外的病房:干预措施:无:干预措施:无:需要插管或死亡率:研究共纳入 159 名患者,支持比例为 2:10(H_CPAP:HFNO)。46.5%的患者为女性,不同支持方式的性别差异不大(费雪检验,P = 0.99)。HFNO 的 APACHE II 评分中位数为 10.5,比 H_CPAP 高 3.5 个单位(p 0.2,二项回归);但是,APACHE II 评分确实混淆了支持率与死亡率的关系(p = 0.82,RR 同质性检验)。尽管 H_CPAP 降低了 79.1% 的死亡风险,但这一降低并不具有统计学意义(p = 0.11,二项回归):结论:与高频硝化氧治疗相比,使用头盔式 CPAP 是一种有效的治疗性通气支持策略,可降低重症监护室以外的住院病房中由冠状病毒 2 型引起的轻度至中度低氧血症患者的插管风险。由于两组患者的大小、年龄和严重程度不同,可能会产生偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correlation and concordance of HACOR and IROX scales in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received non-invasive ventilation in two intensive care units. From geometric equations to dynamic strategies: advances in the personalization of mechanical ventilation through mechanical power. High flow in tracheostomized patients on their first attempt to wean from mechanical ventilation: More questions on the table. Shocked and moved. Early mobilisation in cardiogenic shock. Early mobilisation in patients with shock and receiving vasoactive drugs in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1