Response to: “Inhalation NO in the HFNC group may result in a meaningless extension of survival time”

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank Zhong et al. for the thoughtful comments regarding our manuscript “Impact of low-dose inhaled nitric oxide treatment in spontaneously breathing and intubated COVID-19 patients: a retrospective propensity-matched study” and welcome the opportunity to provide clarifications [1, 2]. While we acknowledge some of their points, others require further explanation to provide a clearer interpretation of our study findings.

First, Zhong et al. recommended that we use the initiation of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) as the starting point for our survival analysis. As we can understand from the study design this was not a comparison between two interventions being provided but was rather a comparison between the intervention group (iNO) and standard of care group (HFNC/ intubation). Moreover, as Zhong et al. rightly pointed out, many times iNO was not started right away after HFNC initiation/ intubation. To establish a common timestamp for time-dependent survival analysis, we used the HFNC initiation time as the starting point for both the iNO and non-iNO groups. As the authors correctly pointed out, this approach can lead to immortal time bias. Therefore, we examined the exact dates of iNO initiation. We noted a median interval of 1 (IQR 0–4) days between HFNC initiation and the iNO start date. As suggested by the authors, we decided to perform additional analyses while considering iNO initiation and HFNC initiation as starting points for survival analyses for the iNO group and non-iNO group, respectively. Upon performing IPTW-weighted univariate Cox regression analysis, iNO use was found to have a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (HR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31–0.75, p = 0.001) as well as lower 28-day mortality risk (HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31–0.79, p = 0.003).

The authors also inquired whether any adjustments for covariates were made in the Cox regression model. We would like to clarify that, since we used the propensity-matching and inverse propensity of treatment weighting (IPTW) approaches for our statistical analyses, we employed a weighted Cox univariate regression model for survival analysis. This method incorporates weights from multiple confounding variables, allowing us to estimate marginal hazard ratios and survival curves. This approach contrasts with traditional multivariate Cox models, which estimate conditional hazard ratios. These methodological choices are supported by prior published literature as well [3, 4]. Propensity weight was also taken into account to plot weighted Kaplan–Meier survival curves for visual representation (Figs. 3 and 4 in the original manuscript) [2].

We would also like to clarify that the mortality rates reported in Tables 1 and 4 of the original manuscript are in-hospital mortality and not 28-day mortality [2]. However, the Kaplan–Meier survival curves as demonstrated in Figs. 3 and 4 signify 30-day mortality risk. The discrepancy between crude in-hospital mortality rate difference and the hazard ratio derived from survival analysis has been noted in some prior literature and should be interpreted under appropriate contexts [5]. The hazard ratio obtained from Cox proportional hazard analysis reflects time-to-event dynamics, and it can be influenced by both time and event factors. The possibility of delaying mortality cannot be excluded and should ideally be explored through further large-scale prospective trials. We did, however, perform additional analyses to plot 90-day Kaplan–Meier survival curves as per the authors’ suggestion and have included that in this correspondence (Fig. 1). We had only four patients with a post-intervention length of stay (HFNC/ iNO start) of more than 90 days and therefore did not decide to include a 180-day survival curve as there was minimal difference compared to a 90-day survival curve.

Fig. 1

Weighted Kaplan–Meier survival curve demonstrating 90-day survival from the time since iNO initiation or HFNC initiation (for the non-iNO group)

Full size image

We hope these clarifications address the concerns raised and further improve the clarity of our analytical approach as well as study findings. Thank you for allowing us to engage in this constructive discussion.

Due to institutional policies, data is available upon reasonable request addressed to the corresponding author.

iNO:

Inhaled nitric oxide

HFNC:

High flow nasal cannula

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease 2019

HR:

Hazard ratio

IPTW:

Inverse propensity of treatment weighted

1. Zhong L, Huang L. Inhalation NO in the HFNC group may result in a meaningless extension of survival time. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2024;28(1):370.

   Article Google Scholar

2. Isha S, Balasubramanian P, Hanson AJ, Jonna S, Raavi L, Khadka S, et al. Impact of low dose inhaled nitric oxide treatment in spontaneously breathing and intubated COVID-19 patients: a retrospective propensity-matched study. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):344.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

3. Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014;33(7):1242–58.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

4. Buchanan AL, Hudgens MG, Cole SR, Lau B, Adimora AA. The women’s interagency HIV study worth the weight: using inverse probability weighted cox models in AIDS research. AIDS Res Hum Retrov. 2014;30(12):1170–7.

   Article Google Scholar

5. Papazian L, Forel JM, Gacouin A, Penot-Ragon C, Perrin G, Loundou A, et al. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1107–16.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

None.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd S, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

   Shahin Isha, Pablo Moreno Franco & Devang K. Sanghavi

Authors

1. Shahin IshaView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

2. Pablo Moreno FrancoView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

3. Devang K. SanghaviView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.I., P.M.F, and D.K.S. contributed to the preparation of the initial draft and final revision. S.I. performed additional analyses as required in this correspondence.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Devang K. Sanghavi.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed under the exemption criteria from the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. Access to the multicenter Mayo Clinic data was granted through “Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study [VIRUS]: COVID-19 Registry and Validation of C2D2 (Critical Care Data Dictionary)” under IRB ID 20–002610. The need for informed consent was waived by the IRB due to its retrospective design, data anonymity, and non-interventional nature.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Cite this article

Isha, S., Moreno Franco, P. & Sanghavi, D.K. Response to: “Inhalation NO in the HFNC group may result in a meaningless extension of survival time”. Crit Care 29, 12 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05218-1

Download citation

• Received: 10 December 2024

• Accepted: 14 December 2024

• Published: 07 January 2025

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05218-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative