双水平压力模式无创通气与CPAP治疗COVID-19相关急性呼吸衰竭的比较倾向评分匹配分析。

Andrés Carrillo-Alcaraz, Miguel Guia, Laura Lopez-Gomez, Pablo Bayoumy, Aurea Higon-Cañigral, Elena Carrasco González, Pilar Tornero Yepez, Juan Miguel Sánchez-Nieto
{"title":"双水平压力模式无创通气与CPAP治疗COVID-19相关急性呼吸衰竭的比较倾向评分匹配分析。","authors":"Andrés Carrillo-Alcaraz, Miguel Guia, Laura Lopez-Gomez, Pablo Bayoumy, Aurea Higon-Cañigral, Elena Carrasco González, Pilar Tornero Yepez, Juan Miguel Sánchez-Nieto","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2025.502146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences in the effectiveness and complications of CPAP versus non-invasive ventilation on bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the treatment of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure (ARF).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective observational study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICU.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>All COVID-19 patients, admitted to an ICU between March 2020 and February 2023, who required CPAP or BiPAP were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Use of CPAP or BiPAP in COVID-19 associated ARF.</p><p><strong>Main variables of interest: </strong>Initial clinical variables, CPAP and BiPAP failure rate, complications, in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>429 patients were analyzed, of whom 328 (76.5%) initially received CPAP and 101 (23.5%) BiPAP. Initial respiratory rate was 30 ± 8 in the CPAP group and 34 ± 9 in BiPAP (p < 0.001), while PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> was 120 ± 26 and 111 ± 24 mmHg (p = 0.001), respectively. The most frequent complication related to the device was claustrophobia/discomfort, 23.2% in CPAP and 25.7% in BiPAP (p = 0.596), while the most frequent complications not related to the device were severe ARDS, 58.6% and 70.1% (p = 0.044), and hyperglycemia, 44.5% and 37.6%, respectively (p = 0.221). After adjusting by propensity score matched analysis, neither failure of the device (OR 1.37, CI 95% 0.72-2.62) nor in-hospital mortality (OR 1.57, CI 95% 0.73-3.42) differed between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Either non-invasive ventilatory device failure or mortality rate differed in patients initially treated with CPAP versus BiPAP.</p>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":" ","pages":"502146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of non-invasive ventilation on bilevel pressure mode and CPAP in the treatment of COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure. A propensity score-matched analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Andrés Carrillo-Alcaraz, Miguel Guia, Laura Lopez-Gomez, Pablo Bayoumy, Aurea Higon-Cañigral, Elena Carrasco González, Pilar Tornero Yepez, Juan Miguel Sánchez-Nieto\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.medine.2025.502146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences in the effectiveness and complications of CPAP versus non-invasive ventilation on bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the treatment of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure (ARF).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective observational study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICU.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>All COVID-19 patients, admitted to an ICU between March 2020 and February 2023, who required CPAP or BiPAP were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Use of CPAP or BiPAP in COVID-19 associated ARF.</p><p><strong>Main variables of interest: </strong>Initial clinical variables, CPAP and BiPAP failure rate, complications, in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>429 patients were analyzed, of whom 328 (76.5%) initially received CPAP and 101 (23.5%) BiPAP. Initial respiratory rate was 30 ± 8 in the CPAP group and 34 ± 9 in BiPAP (p < 0.001), while PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> was 120 ± 26 and 111 ± 24 mmHg (p = 0.001), respectively. The most frequent complication related to the device was claustrophobia/discomfort, 23.2% in CPAP and 25.7% in BiPAP (p = 0.596), while the most frequent complications not related to the device were severe ARDS, 58.6% and 70.1% (p = 0.044), and hyperglycemia, 44.5% and 37.6%, respectively (p = 0.221). After adjusting by propensity score matched analysis, neither failure of the device (OR 1.37, CI 95% 0.72-2.62) nor in-hospital mortality (OR 1.57, CI 95% 0.73-3.42) differed between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Either non-invasive ventilatory device failure or mortality rate differed in patients initially treated with CPAP versus BiPAP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicina intensiva\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"502146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicina intensiva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2025.502146\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2025.502146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:分析双水平气道正压通气(BiPAP)与无创通气治疗COVID-19相关急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)的疗效及并发症的差异。设计:回顾性观察性研究。设置:ICU。患者:分析2020年3月至2023年2月期间入住ICU的所有需要CPAP或BiPAP的COVID-19患者。干预措施:在COVID-19相关ARF中使用CPAP或BiPAP。主要研究变量:初始临床变量,CPAP和BiPAP失败率,并发症,住院死亡率。结果:分析429例患者,其中328例(76.5%)最初接受CPAP, 101例(23.5%)接受BiPAP。最初的呼吸速率是30 ±8 CPAP组和34 ±BiPAP 9 (p 2 /供给120 ± 26日和111年 ± 24 毫米汞柱(p = 0.001),分别。与设备相关的最常见并发症为幽闭恐惧症/不适,CPAP为23.2%,BiPAP为25.7% (p = 0.596),与设备无关的最常见并发症为严重ARDS,分别为58.6%和70.1% (p = 0.044),高血糖症,分别为44.5%和37.6% (p = 0.221)。经倾向评分匹配分析调整后,两组间装置失效(OR 1.37, CI 95% 0.72-2.62)和住院死亡率(OR 1.57, CI 95% 0.73-3.42)均无差异。结论:CPAP与BiPAP初始治疗患者的无创通气装置失效或死亡率存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of non-invasive ventilation on bilevel pressure mode and CPAP in the treatment of COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure. A propensity score-matched analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences in the effectiveness and complications of CPAP versus non-invasive ventilation on bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the treatment of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure (ARF).

Design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: ICU.

Patients: All COVID-19 patients, admitted to an ICU between March 2020 and February 2023, who required CPAP or BiPAP were analyzed.

Interventions: Use of CPAP or BiPAP in COVID-19 associated ARF.

Main variables of interest: Initial clinical variables, CPAP and BiPAP failure rate, complications, in-hospital mortality.

Results: 429 patients were analyzed, of whom 328 (76.5%) initially received CPAP and 101 (23.5%) BiPAP. Initial respiratory rate was 30 ± 8 in the CPAP group and 34 ± 9 in BiPAP (p < 0.001), while PaO2/FiO2 was 120 ± 26 and 111 ± 24 mmHg (p = 0.001), respectively. The most frequent complication related to the device was claustrophobia/discomfort, 23.2% in CPAP and 25.7% in BiPAP (p = 0.596), while the most frequent complications not related to the device were severe ARDS, 58.6% and 70.1% (p = 0.044), and hyperglycemia, 44.5% and 37.6%, respectively (p = 0.221). After adjusting by propensity score matched analysis, neither failure of the device (OR 1.37, CI 95% 0.72-2.62) nor in-hospital mortality (OR 1.57, CI 95% 0.73-3.42) differed between both groups.

Conclusions: Either non-invasive ventilatory device failure or mortality rate differed in patients initially treated with CPAP versus BiPAP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The human factor and ergonomics in Patient Safety Safe practices in Intensive Care Medicine, is zero risk possible? Horner’s syndrome after chest drain insertion due to pneumothorax Dynamic air bronchogram in pneumococcal community acquired pneumonia Clinical utility of rapid shallow breathing index in predicting successful weaning: secondary analysis of the COBRE-US trial
×
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