Did intubation procedures for critically ill patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection change during the pandemic? Secondary analysis of the INTUPROS multicenter study

Medicina intensiva Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1016/j.medine.2025.502122
José Luis García-Garmendia , Josep Trenado-Álvarez , Federico Gordo-Vidal , Elena Gordillo-Escobar , Esther Martínez-Barrios , Fernando Onieva-Calero , Víctor Sagredo-Meneses , Emilio Rodríguez-Ruiz , Rafael Ángel Bohollo-de-Austria , José Moreno-Quintana , María Isabel Ruiz-García , José Garnacho-Montero
{"title":"Did intubation procedures for critically ill patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection change during the pandemic? Secondary analysis of the INTUPROS multicenter study","authors":"José Luis García-Garmendia ,&nbsp;Josep Trenado-Álvarez ,&nbsp;Federico Gordo-Vidal ,&nbsp;Elena Gordillo-Escobar ,&nbsp;Esther Martínez-Barrios ,&nbsp;Fernando Onieva-Calero ,&nbsp;Víctor Sagredo-Meneses ,&nbsp;Emilio Rodríguez-Ruiz ,&nbsp;Rafael Ángel Bohollo-de-Austria ,&nbsp;José Moreno-Quintana ,&nbsp;María Isabel Ruiz-García ,&nbsp;José Garnacho-Montero","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2025.502122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine the changes in intubation procedures of critically ill patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection induced during the COVID-19 pandemic.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Secondary Analysis of the INTUPROS Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Intubation in Intensive Care Units (ICUs).</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>43 Spanish ICUs between April 2019 and October 2020.</div></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><div>1515 Non-COVID-19 patients intubated before and during the pandemic.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>None.</div></div><div><h3>Main variables of interest</h3><div>Intubation procedures and medication, first-pass success rate, complications, and mortality.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>1199 patients intubated before the pandemic and 316 during the pandemic were analyzed. During the pandemic, there were fewer days until intubation (OR 0.95 95% CI [0.92−0.98]), reduced resuscitation bag (OR 0.43 95% CI [0.29−0.63]) and non-invasive ventilation oxygenation (OR 0.51 95% CI [0.34−0.76]), reduced use of capnography (OR 0.55 95% CI [0.33−0.92]) and fentanyl (OR 0.47 95% CI [0.34−0.63]). On the other hand, there was an increase in oxygenation with non-HFNC devices (OR 2.21 95% CI [1.23–3.96]), in use of videolaryngoscopy on the first-pass (OR 2.74 95% CI [1.76–4.24]), and greater use of midazolam (OR 1.95 95% CI [1.39–2.72]), etomidate (OR 1.78 95% CI [1.28–2.47]) and succinylcholine (OR 2.55 95% CI [1.82–3.58]). The first-pass success was higher (68.5% vs. 74.7%; <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.033). There were no pre-post differences in major complications (34.7% vs. 34.8%; <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.970) and in-hospital mortality (42.7% vs. 38.6%; <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.137).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The COVID-19 pandemic modified intubation procedures in non-COVID-19 patients, changing the oxygenation strategy, the medication and the use of videolaryngoscopy, with no impact on complications or mortality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":"49 8","pages":"Article 502122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","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/S2173572725000232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To determine the changes in intubation procedures of critically ill patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection induced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

Secondary Analysis of the INTUPROS Prospective Multicenter Observational Study on Intubation in Intensive Care Units (ICUs).

Setting

43 Spanish ICUs between April 2019 and October 2020.

Patients

1515 Non-COVID-19 patients intubated before and during the pandemic.

Interventions

None.

Main variables of interest

Intubation procedures and medication, first-pass success rate, complications, and mortality.

Results

1199 patients intubated before the pandemic and 316 during the pandemic were analyzed. During the pandemic, there were fewer days until intubation (OR 0.95 95% CI [0.92−0.98]), reduced resuscitation bag (OR 0.43 95% CI [0.29−0.63]) and non-invasive ventilation oxygenation (OR 0.51 95% CI [0.34−0.76]), reduced use of capnography (OR 0.55 95% CI [0.33−0.92]) and fentanyl (OR 0.47 95% CI [0.34−0.63]). On the other hand, there was an increase in oxygenation with non-HFNC devices (OR 2.21 95% CI [1.23–3.96]), in use of videolaryngoscopy on the first-pass (OR 2.74 95% CI [1.76–4.24]), and greater use of midazolam (OR 1.95 95% CI [1.39–2.72]), etomidate (OR 1.78 95% CI [1.28–2.47]) and succinylcholine (OR 2.55 95% CI [1.82–3.58]). The first-pass success was higher (68.5% vs. 74.7%; P = .033). There were no pre-post differences in major complications (34.7% vs. 34.8%; P = .970) and in-hospital mortality (42.7% vs. 38.6%; P = .137).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic modified intubation procedures in non-COVID-19 patients, changing the oxygenation strategy, the medication and the use of videolaryngoscopy, with no impact on complications or mortality.
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
未感染SARS-CoV-2的危重患者的插管程序在大流行期间是否发生了变化?对INTUPROS多中心研究的二次分析。
目的:了解COVID-19大流行期间未感染SARS-CoV-2的危重患者插管程序的变化。设计:对重症监护病房(icu)插管的INTUPROS前瞻性多中心观察性研究进行二次分析。设置:2019年4月至2020年10月期间,共有43个西班牙icu。患者:1515名非covid -19患者在大流行之前和期间插管。干预措施:没有。感兴趣的主要变量:插管程序和药物,首次通过成功率,并发症和死亡率。结果:分析大流行前插管1199例,大流行期间插管316例。在大流行期间,距插管(OR 0.95 95% CI[0.92-0.98])、减少复苏袋(OR 0.43 95% CI[0.29-0.63])和无创通气充氧(OR 0.51 95% CI[0.34-0.76])、减少使用血管造影(OR 0.55 95% CI[0.33-0.92])和芬太尼(OR 0.47 95% CI[0.34-0.63])的天数更短。另一方面,非hfnc设备的氧合增加(OR 2.21 95% CI[1.23-3.96]),第一次使用视频喉镜检查(OR 2.74 95% CI[1.76-4.24]),咪达唑仑(OR 1.95 95% CI[1.39-2.72]),依托咪酯(OR 1.78 95% CI[1.28-2.47])和琥珀酰胆碱(OR 2.55 95% CI[1.82-3.58])的使用增加。第一次通过率更高(68.5% vs. 74.7%;P = .033)。术后主要并发症发生率无差异(34.7% vs 34.8%;P=.970)和住院死亡率(42.7% vs. 38.6%;P = .137)。结论:COVID-19大流行改变了非COVID-19患者的插管程序,改变了氧合策略、药物和视频喉镜检查的使用,对并发症和死亡率没有影响。
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
The therapeutic context as a determinant of prognosis in critically ill cancer patients. Prediction of COVID-19 mortality using machine learning strategies and a large-scale panel of plasma inflammatory proteins: A cohort study 0.9% sodium chloride versus ringer’s lactate in the management of severe diabetic ketoacidosis: A randomized trial Key laboratory changes in severe trauma, a different pattern for each clinical phenotype Usefulness of vector velocity imaging in the descending thoracic aorta
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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