High Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation as Initial Respiratory Support in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Covid-19: Exploratory Analysis in Two Intensive Care Units.

Q3 Medicine Acta medica academica Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.5644/ama2006-124.389
Aida Mujaković, Tijana Kovačević, Edin Begić, Almir Fajkić, Goran Barić, Anida Jamakosmanović, Nermin Ismić, Peđa Kovačević
{"title":"High Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation as Initial Respiratory Support in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Covid-19: Exploratory Analysis in Two Intensive Care Units.","authors":"Aida Mujaković,&nbsp;Tijana Kovačević,&nbsp;Edin Begić,&nbsp;Almir Fajkić,&nbsp;Goran Barić,&nbsp;Anida Jamakosmanović,&nbsp;Nermin Ismić,&nbsp;Peđa Kovačević","doi":"10.5644/ama2006-124.389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify the type of the non-invasive ventilatory treatment for patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with respiratory status deteriorated by COVID-19 pneumonia, and in need of treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study was conducted over a one-year period in the medical intensive care units of two hospitals. As the patients' clinical condition deteriorated and the parameters of the arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis worsened, oxygen support was applied via a high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or by non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). According to the control values of the arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) and the parameters of ABG, the patients were enabled to be transferred between the two types of non-invasive ventilatory support. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay, while secondary outcomes were the rate of intubation, the mortality rate, and respiratory supportfree days.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 21 critical patients with COPD and COVID-19, 11 (52.4%) were initially treated with NPPV and 10 (47.6%) with HFNC. The ages (67±9.79 in NPPV group vs. 70.10±10.25 in HFNC group) and severity of illness (SOFA score 5 (3.5) in NPPV group vs. 5 (2.8) in HFNC group) were similar between the two groups. Switching the mode of respiratory support was more common in NPPV (58.3% in survivor group vs. 41.7% in non-survivor group). Patients treated with NPPV compared to HFNC had a nominally longer length of stay (15 (11) vs. 11.5 (4.25)), and higher risk of intubation (66.7% vs. 33.3%) and mortality (66.7% vs. 33.3%), but the comparisons did not reach statistical significance. Survivors had significantly longer Medical Intensive Care Unit and hospital stays, but significantly lower FiO2 (0.60 vs.1) and higher values of PaO2/FiO2 (78(32.4) vs. 56.3(17.8)) than non-survivors. All patients were treated with corticosteroids, and the duration of treatment was similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In critically ill patients with COPD and COVID-19, both HFNC and NPPV were commonly used as the initial mode of ventilation. Switching to a different mode and adverse patient outcomes were more frequent in patients initially treated with NPPV. Survivors had higher values of PaO2/FiO2 than non-survivors.</p>","PeriodicalId":38313,"journal":{"name":"Acta medica academica","volume":"51 3","pages":"199-208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/47/6f/AMA-51-199.PMC10116172.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta medica academica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify the type of the non-invasive ventilatory treatment for patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with respiratory status deteriorated by COVID-19 pneumonia, and in need of treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted over a one-year period in the medical intensive care units of two hospitals. As the patients' clinical condition deteriorated and the parameters of the arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis worsened, oxygen support was applied via a high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or by non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). According to the control values of the arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) and the parameters of ABG, the patients were enabled to be transferred between the two types of non-invasive ventilatory support. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay, while secondary outcomes were the rate of intubation, the mortality rate, and respiratory supportfree days.

Results: Out of 21 critical patients with COPD and COVID-19, 11 (52.4%) were initially treated with NPPV and 10 (47.6%) with HFNC. The ages (67±9.79 in NPPV group vs. 70.10±10.25 in HFNC group) and severity of illness (SOFA score 5 (3.5) in NPPV group vs. 5 (2.8) in HFNC group) were similar between the two groups. Switching the mode of respiratory support was more common in NPPV (58.3% in survivor group vs. 41.7% in non-survivor group). Patients treated with NPPV compared to HFNC had a nominally longer length of stay (15 (11) vs. 11.5 (4.25)), and higher risk of intubation (66.7% vs. 33.3%) and mortality (66.7% vs. 33.3%), but the comparisons did not reach statistical significance. Survivors had significantly longer Medical Intensive Care Unit and hospital stays, but significantly lower FiO2 (0.60 vs.1) and higher values of PaO2/FiO2 (78(32.4) vs. 56.3(17.8)) than non-survivors. All patients were treated with corticosteroids, and the duration of treatment was similar between groups.

Conclusion: In critically ill patients with COPD and COVID-19, both HFNC and NPPV were commonly used as the initial mode of ventilation. Switching to a different mode and adverse patient outcomes were more frequent in patients initially treated with NPPV. Survivors had higher values of PaO2/FiO2 than non-survivors.

Abstract Image

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
高流量鼻插管与无创正压通气作为慢性阻塞性肺疾病和Covid-19患者的初始呼吸支持:两个重症监护病房的探索性分析
目的:探讨诊断为慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)、COVID-19肺炎导致呼吸状况恶化、需要重症监护病房(ICU)治疗的患者的无创通气治疗类型。材料和方法:本横断面研究在两家医院的医学重症监护室进行了为期一年的研究。随着患者临床病情恶化,动脉血气(ABG)分析参数恶化,采用高流量鼻插管(HFNC)或无创正压通气(NPPV)给予氧支持。根据动脉血氧饱和度(SaO2)的控制值和ABG的参数,使患者能够在两种无创通气支持之间切换。主要结局是住院时间,次要结局是插管率、死亡率和无呼吸支持天数。结果:21例COPD合并COVID-19危重患者中,11例(52.4%)采用NPPV初始治疗,10例(47.6%)采用HFNC初始治疗。两组患者的年龄(NPPV组为67±9.79,HFNC组为70.10±10.25)和病情严重程度(SOFA评分为5分(3.5),HFNC组为5分(2.8))比较,差异无统计学意义。切换呼吸支持模式在NPPV中更为常见(生存组为58.3%,非生存组为41.7%)。与HFNC相比,NPPV治疗的患者名义上住院时间更长(15(11)比11.5(4.25)),插管风险(66.7%比33.3%)和死亡率(66.7%比33.3%)更高,但比较无统计学意义。与非幸存者相比,幸存者的医疗重症监护病房和住院时间明显更长,但FiO2明显较低(0.60 vs.1), PaO2/FiO2值明显较高(78(32.4)vs 56.3(17.8))。所有患者均接受皮质类固醇治疗,治疗时间组间相似。结论:在COPD合并COVID-19危重患者中,HFNC和NPPV均可作为初始通气模式。在最初接受NPPV治疗的患者中,切换到不同的模式和不良患者结果更常见。幸存者的PaO2/FiO2值高于非幸存者。
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
Acta medica academica
Acta medica academica Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Inborn Errors of Immunity: New Insights. Resilience in the Face of War: a Collaborative Autoethnography of a Ukrainian Refugee Student's Journey through Europe Striving to Find Oneself. Anatomical Variations of the Vermiform Appendix. Morphometric Analysis of the Greater Palatine Foramina in the Bosnia and Herzegovina Population. HPV-Related Cancers in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Comprehensive Review.
×
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