The repurposed use of anesthesia machines to ventilate critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
ARDS
Anesthesia machine
COVID-19
Intensive care unit
Mechanical ventilation
Journal
BMC anesthesiology
ISSN: 1471-2253
Titre abrégé: BMC Anesthesiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968535
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 05 2021
20 05 2021
Historique:
received:
03
03
2021
accepted:
06
05
2021
entrez:
21
5
2021
pubmed:
22
5
2021
medline:
1
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The surge of critically ill patients due to the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) overwhelmed critical care capacity in areas of northern Italy. Anesthesia machines have been used as alternatives to traditional ICU mechanical ventilators. However, the outcomes for patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure cared for with Anesthesia Machines is currently unknow. We hypothesized that COVID-19 patients receiving care with Anesthesia Machines would have worse outcomes compared to standard practice. We designed a retrospective study of patients admitted with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis at a large tertiary urban hospital in northern Italy. Two care units were included: a 27-bed standard ICU and a 15-bed temporary unit emergently opened in an operating room setting. Intubated patients assigned to Anesthesia Machines (AM group) were compared to a control cohort treated with standard mechanical ventilators (ICU-VENT group). Outcomes were assessed at 60-day follow-up. A multivariable Cox regression analysis of risk factors between survivors and non-survivors was conducted to determine the adjusted risk of death for patients assigned to AM group. Complete daily data from 89 mechanically ventilated patients consecutively admitted to the two units were analyzed. Seventeen patients were included in the AM group, whereas 72 were in the ICU-VENT group. Disease severity and intensity of treatment were comparable between the two groups. The 60-day mortality was significantly higher in the AM group compared to the ICU-vent group (12/17 vs. 27/72, 70.6% vs. 37.5%, respectively, p = 0.016). Allocation to AM group was associated with a significantly increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (HR 4.05, 95% CI: 1.75-9.33, p = 0.001). Several incidents and complications were reported with Anesthesia Machine care, raising safety concerns. Our results support the hypothesis that care associated with the use of Anesthesia Machines is inadequate to provide long-term critical care to patients with COVID-19. Added safety risks must be considered if no other option is available to treat severely ill patients during the ongoing pandemic. Not applicable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The surge of critically ill patients due to the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) overwhelmed critical care capacity in areas of northern Italy. Anesthesia machines have been used as alternatives to traditional ICU mechanical ventilators. However, the outcomes for patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure cared for with Anesthesia Machines is currently unknow. We hypothesized that COVID-19 patients receiving care with Anesthesia Machines would have worse outcomes compared to standard practice.
METHODS
We designed a retrospective study of patients admitted with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis at a large tertiary urban hospital in northern Italy. Two care units were included: a 27-bed standard ICU and a 15-bed temporary unit emergently opened in an operating room setting. Intubated patients assigned to Anesthesia Machines (AM group) were compared to a control cohort treated with standard mechanical ventilators (ICU-VENT group). Outcomes were assessed at 60-day follow-up. A multivariable Cox regression analysis of risk factors between survivors and non-survivors was conducted to determine the adjusted risk of death for patients assigned to AM group.
RESULTS
Complete daily data from 89 mechanically ventilated patients consecutively admitted to the two units were analyzed. Seventeen patients were included in the AM group, whereas 72 were in the ICU-VENT group. Disease severity and intensity of treatment were comparable between the two groups. The 60-day mortality was significantly higher in the AM group compared to the ICU-vent group (12/17 vs. 27/72, 70.6% vs. 37.5%, respectively, p = 0.016). Allocation to AM group was associated with a significantly increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (HR 4.05, 95% CI: 1.75-9.33, p = 0.001). Several incidents and complications were reported with Anesthesia Machine care, raising safety concerns.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results support the hypothesis that care associated with the use of Anesthesia Machines is inadequate to provide long-term critical care to patients with COVID-19. Added safety risks must be considered if no other option is available to treat severely ill patients during the ongoing pandemic.
CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER
Not applicable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34016056
doi: 10.1186/s12871-021-01376-9
pii: 10.1186/s12871-021-01376-9
pmc: PMC8134805
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
155Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Références
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1239-1242
pubmed: 32091533
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Aug;46(8):1563-1566
pubmed: 32588067
Lancet. 2004 Jul 24-30;364(9431):313-5
pubmed: 15276374
Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):854-887
pubmed: 32222812
Respir Care. 2012 May;57(5):782-8
pubmed: 22546299
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062
pubmed: 32171076
Braz J Anesthesiol. 2020 Mar-Apr;70(2):184-185
pubmed: 32322128
Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jun;37(6):933-41
pubmed: 21445642
Anesth Analg. 2014 Oct;119(4):926-31
pubmed: 25010823
Respir Care. 2005 Mar;50(3):340-4
pubmed: 15737243
J Clin Anesth. 2020 Nov;66:109967
pubmed: 32593033
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 May 1;195(9):1253-1263
pubmed: 28459336
JAMA. 2020 Apr 28;323(16):1545-1546
pubmed: 32167538
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 Mar 14;5(1):18
pubmed: 30872586
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Feb 15;195(4):438-442
pubmed: 27626833
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:715434
pubmed: 25089275
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2012-2022
pubmed: 32227758
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Oct 1;180(10):1345-1355
pubmed: 32667669
JAMA. 2020 Apr 28;323(16):1574-1581
pubmed: 32250385
Br J Anaesth. 2020 Aug;125(2):118-121
pubmed: 32416995
Crit Care. 2020 May 11;24(1):215
pubmed: 32393325
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
A A Pract. 2020 May;14(7):e01243
pubmed: 32539282
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Aug;34(8):515-525
pubmed: 28403017
Anaesthesia. 2020 Oct;75(10):1340-1349
pubmed: 32602561
Ann Intensive Care. 2019 Jun 13;9(1):69
pubmed: 31197492
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar 15;195(6):792-800
pubmed: 27611637
J Intensive Care Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):927-932
pubmed: 32677498
Crit Care. 2020 Jun 30;24(1):388
pubmed: 32605580