Non-invasive respiratory support in SARS-CoV-2 related acute respiratory distress syndrome: when is it most appropriate to start treatment?
ARDS
COVID-19
CPAP
NIV
SARS-CoV-2
Journal
Respiratory research
ISSN: 1465-993X
Titre abrégé: Respir Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101090633
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Dec 2022
03 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
14
06
2022
accepted:
21
11
2022
entrez:
3
12
2022
pubmed:
4
12
2022
medline:
7
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most severe complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support (NRS) as Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and/or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) has been proven as effective in the management of SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS. However, the most appropriate timing for start NRS is unknown. We conducted a prospective pilot study including all consecutive patients who developed moderate SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS during hospitalization. Patients were randomly divided into two intervention groups according to ARDS severity (assessed by PaO Among 146 eligible patients, 29 underwent CPAP/NIV when P/F was ≤ 200 (Group A), 68 when P/F was ≤ 150 (Group B) and 31 patients agreed to non-invasive treatment only when P/F was ≤ 100 (Group C). Starting NRS at P/F level between 151 and 200 did not results in significant differences in the outcomes as compared to treatment starting with P/F ranging 101-150. Conversely, patients undergone CPAP/NIV in a moderate stage (P/F 101-200) had a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate (13.4 vs. 29.0%, p = 0.044) and hospitalization length (14 vs. 15 days, p = 0.038) than those in the severe stage (P/F ≤ 100). Age and need for continuous ventilation were independent predictors of CPAP/NIV failure. Starting CPAP/NIV in patients with SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS in moderate stage (100 > P/F ≤ 200) is associated to a reduction of both in-hospital mortality and hospitalization length compared to the severe stage (P/F ≤ 100). Starting CPAP/NIV with a P/F > 150 does not appear to be of clinical utility.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most severe complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support (NRS) as Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and/or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) has been proven as effective in the management of SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS. However, the most appropriate timing for start NRS is unknown.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a prospective pilot study including all consecutive patients who developed moderate SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS during hospitalization. Patients were randomly divided into two intervention groups according to ARDS severity (assessed by PaO
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 146 eligible patients, 29 underwent CPAP/NIV when P/F was ≤ 200 (Group A), 68 when P/F was ≤ 150 (Group B) and 31 patients agreed to non-invasive treatment only when P/F was ≤ 100 (Group C). Starting NRS at P/F level between 151 and 200 did not results in significant differences in the outcomes as compared to treatment starting with P/F ranging 101-150. Conversely, patients undergone CPAP/NIV in a moderate stage (P/F 101-200) had a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate (13.4 vs. 29.0%, p = 0.044) and hospitalization length (14 vs. 15 days, p = 0.038) than those in the severe stage (P/F ≤ 100). Age and need for continuous ventilation were independent predictors of CPAP/NIV failure.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Starting CPAP/NIV in patients with SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS in moderate stage (100 > P/F ≤ 200) is associated to a reduction of both in-hospital mortality and hospitalization length compared to the severe stage (P/F ≤ 100). Starting CPAP/NIV with a P/F > 150 does not appear to be of clinical utility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36463178
doi: 10.1186/s12931-022-02258-5
pii: 10.1186/s12931-022-02258-5
pmc: PMC9719658
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
327Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0262522
pubmed: 35020777
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Oct 1;180(10):1345-1355
pubmed: 32667669
JAMA. 2021 May 4;325(17):1731-1743
pubmed: 33764378
Minerva Anestesiol. 2021 Aug;87(8):915-926
pubmed: 34036769
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2021 Sep;8(1):
pubmed: 34521649
Crit Care. 2021 Feb 24;25(1):80
pubmed: 33627169
Crit Care. 2021 Jul 30;25(1):268
pubmed: 34330320
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2012-2022
pubmed: 32227758
Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020 Dec;16(12):1159-1184
pubmed: 33356661
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 May 15;201(10):1299-1300
pubmed: 32228035
JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):698-710
pubmed: 29466596
Infect Dis Ther. 2021 Dec;10(4):1837-1885
pubmed: 34328629
Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2021;38(2):e2021017
pubmed: 34316257
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 22;10(22):
pubmed: 34830728
Radiology. 2020 Apr;295(1):202-207
pubmed: 32017661
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Feb;46(2):315-328
pubmed: 32040667
J Clin Med. 2020 Apr 22;9(4):
pubmed: 32331217
Crit Care. 2021 Mar 25;25(1):121
pubmed: 33766109
JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2052-2059
pubmed: 32320003
Respiration. 2020;99(6):521-542
pubmed: 32564028
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062
pubmed: 32171076
ERJ Open Res. 2021 Jan 25;7(1):
pubmed: 33527074
Crit Care. 2021 May 25;25(1):175
pubmed: 34034782
Infection. 2021 Oct;49(5):989-997
pubmed: 34089483
JAMA. 2022 Feb 8;327(6):546-558
pubmed: 35072713
Eur Respir J. 2020 Oct 15;56(4):
pubmed: 32747395
Clin Respir J. 2021 Jul;15(7):779-787
pubmed: 33728822
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 13;56(2):
pubmed: 32430410
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Aug 1;198(3):398-401
pubmed: 29557671
Int J Gen Med. 2021 Sep 28;14:6085-6092
pubmed: 34616174
Eur Respir J. 2021 Feb 17;57(2):
pubmed: 33033151
Ann Intensive Care. 2021 Oct 2;11(1):143
pubmed: 34601646
Emerg Med J. 2021 May;38(5):359-365
pubmed: 33727235
Eur Respir J. 2020 Nov 5;56(5):
pubmed: 32747398
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):475-481
pubmed: 32105632