Airway pressure release ventilation in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multicenter observational study.

COVID-19 intensive care respiration, artificial ventilation mode, APRV

Journal

Acute and critical care
ISSN: 2586-6060
Titre abrégé: Acute Crit Care
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101726905

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2021
Historique:
received: 04 01 2021
accepted: 17 03 2021
pubmed: 5 5 2021
medline: 5 5 2021
entrez: 4 5 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Evidence prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggested that, compared with conventional ventilation strategies, airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) can improve oxygenation and reduce mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We aimed to assess the association between APRV use and clinical outcomes among adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 and hypothesized that APRV use would be associated with improved survival compared with conventional ventilation. A total of 25 patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis was admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for invasive ventilation in Perth, Western Australia, between February and May 2020. Eleven of these patients received APRV. The primary outcome was survival to day 90. Secondary outcomes were ventilation-free survival days to day 90, mechanical complications from ventilation, and number of days ventilated. Patients who received APRV had a lower probability of survival than did those on other forms of ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.89; P=0.036). This finding was independent of indices of severity of illness to predict the use of APRV. Patients who received APRV also had fewer ventilator-free survival days up to 90 days after initiation of ventilation compared to patients who did not receive APRV, and survivors who received APRV had fewer ventilator-free days than survivors who received other forms of ventilation. There were no differences in mechanical complications according to mode of ventilation. Based on the findings of this study, we urge caution with the use of APRV in COVID-19.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Evidence prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggested that, compared with conventional ventilation strategies, airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) can improve oxygenation and reduce mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We aimed to assess the association between APRV use and clinical outcomes among adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 and hypothesized that APRV use would be associated with improved survival compared with conventional ventilation.
METHODS METHODS
A total of 25 patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis was admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for invasive ventilation in Perth, Western Australia, between February and May 2020. Eleven of these patients received APRV. The primary outcome was survival to day 90. Secondary outcomes were ventilation-free survival days to day 90, mechanical complications from ventilation, and number of days ventilated.
RESULTS RESULTS
Patients who received APRV had a lower probability of survival than did those on other forms of ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.89; P=0.036). This finding was independent of indices of severity of illness to predict the use of APRV. Patients who received APRV also had fewer ventilator-free survival days up to 90 days after initiation of ventilation compared to patients who did not receive APRV, and survivors who received APRV had fewer ventilator-free days than survivors who received other forms of ventilation. There were no differences in mechanical complications according to mode of ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this study, we urge caution with the use of APRV in COVID-19.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33940775
pii: acc.2021.00017
doi: 10.4266/acc.2021.00017
pmc: PMC8182154
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

143-150

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health, Government of Western Australia

Références

Crit Care. 2020 Apr 16;24(1):154
pubmed: 32299472
Crit Care Med. 2019 Dec;47(12):1794-1799
pubmed: 31517696
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 27;56(2):
pubmed: 32616591
J Infect. 2020 May;80(5):e1-e6
pubmed: 32171869
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jun 15;201(12):1560-1564
pubmed: 32348678
Eur Respir J. 2020 Jul 23;56(1):
pubmed: 32482788
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Apr;5(4):536-544
pubmed: 32123347
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Feb;9(2):139-148
pubmed: 33169671
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 27;56(2):
pubmed: 32616600
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Nov;43(11):1648-1659
pubmed: 28936695
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 27;56(2):
pubmed: 32747393
Cleve Clin J Med. 2011 Feb;78(2):101-10
pubmed: 21285342
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Apr;46(4):579-582
pubmed: 32103284
BMJ. 2020 May 22;369:m1985
pubmed: 32444460
Crit Care. 2020 Jul 2;24(1):389
pubmed: 32616077
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1239-1242
pubmed: 32091533
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686

Auteurs

John S Zorbas (JS)

Intensive Care Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.

Kwok M Ho (KM)

Intensive Care Department, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia.
University of Western Australia School of Medicine, Perth, Australia.
School of Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.

Edward Litton (E)

University of Western Australia School of Medicine, Perth, Australia.
Intensive Care Department, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia.

Bradley Wibrow (B)

Intensive Care Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.
University of Western Australia School of Medicine, Perth, Australia.

Edward Fysh (E)

Intensive Care Department, St John of God Midland Hospital, Perth, Australia.

Matthew H Anstey (MH)

Intensive Care Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.
University of Western Australia School of Medicine, Perth, Australia.

Classifications MeSH