Conventional oxygen therapy versus CPAP as a ceiling of care in ward-based patients with COVID-19: a multi-centre cohort evaluation.
COVID-19
Ceiling of care
Invasive mechanical ventilation
Non-invasive ventilation
Oxygen
nIMV
Journal
EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
14
9
2021
medline:
14
9
2021
entrez:
13
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is commonly used for respiratory failure due to severe COVID-19 pneumonitis, including in patients deemed not likely to benefit from invasive mechanical ventilation (nIMV). Little evidence exists demonstrating superiority over conventional oxygen therapy, whilst ward-level delivery of CPAP presents practical challenges. We sought to compare clinical outcomes of oxygen therapy versus CPAP therapy in patients with COVID-19 who were nIMV. This retrospective multi-centre cohort evaluation included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were nIMV, had a treatment escalation plan of ward-level care and clinical frailty scale ≤ 6. Recruitment occurred during the first two waves of the UK COVID-19 pandemic in 2020; from 1 Seven hospitals provided data for 479 patients during the UK COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Overall 30-day mortality was 75.6% in the oxygen group (186/246 patients) and 77.7% in the CPAP group (181/233 patients). A lack of evidence for a treatment effect persisted in the adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio 0.84 95% CI 0.57-1.23, p=0.37). 49.8% of patients receiving CPAP-therapy (118/237) chose to discontinue it. No survival difference was found between using oxygen alone or CPAP to treat patients with severe COVID-19 who were nIMV. A high patient-initiated discontinuation rate for CPAP suggests a significant treatment burden. Further reflection is warranted on the current treatment guidance and widespread application of CPAP in this setting. L Pearmain is supported by the MRC (MR/R00191X/1). TW Felton is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is commonly used for respiratory failure due to severe COVID-19 pneumonitis, including in patients deemed not likely to benefit from invasive mechanical ventilation (nIMV). Little evidence exists demonstrating superiority over conventional oxygen therapy, whilst ward-level delivery of CPAP presents practical challenges. We sought to compare clinical outcomes of oxygen therapy versus CPAP therapy in patients with COVID-19 who were nIMV.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective multi-centre cohort evaluation included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were nIMV, had a treatment escalation plan of ward-level care and clinical frailty scale ≤ 6. Recruitment occurred during the first two waves of the UK COVID-19 pandemic in 2020; from 1
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Seven hospitals provided data for 479 patients during the UK COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Overall 30-day mortality was 75.6% in the oxygen group (186/246 patients) and 77.7% in the CPAP group (181/233 patients). A lack of evidence for a treatment effect persisted in the adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio 0.84 95% CI 0.57-1.23, p=0.37). 49.8% of patients receiving CPAP-therapy (118/237) chose to discontinue it.
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
No survival difference was found between using oxygen alone or CPAP to treat patients with severe COVID-19 who were nIMV. A high patient-initiated discontinuation rate for CPAP suggests a significant treatment burden. Further reflection is warranted on the current treatment guidance and widespread application of CPAP in this setting.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
L Pearmain is supported by the MRC (MR/R00191X/1). TW Felton is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34514360
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101122
pii: S2589-5370(21)00402-8
pmc: PMC8424135
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101122Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R00191X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
AB reports fees for speaking/session chair for Fisher and Paykel webinars (high nasal flow cannulae). AB is an advisory board member for Sanofi Genzyme (respiratory management of Pompe disease). All other authors have nothing to declare.