4.5 Article

Noninvasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 39, Issue -, Pages 154-157

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.075

Keywords

Noninvasive ventilation; Acute respiratory failure; COVID-19

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective cohort study found that the success rate of NIV application for COVID-19 patients with AHRF was 72.1%, and the mortality rate of patients who failed NIV was 24.6%. Older patients with higher physiological indicators before NIV treatment were more likely to fail NIV therapy.
Aim: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is known to reduce intubation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). We aimed to assess the outcomes of NIV application in COVID-19 patients with AHRF. Materials & methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and AHRF receiving NIV in general wards were recruited from two university-affiliated hospitals. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were recorded at admission. The failure of NIV was defined as intubation or death during the hospital stay. Results: Between April 8 and June 10, 2020, 61 patients were enrolled into the final cohort. NIV was successful in 44 out of 61 patients (72.1%), 17 patients who failed NIV therapy were intubated, and among them 15 died. Overall mortality rate was 24.6%. Patients who failed NIV were older, and had higher respiratory rate, PaCO2, D-dimer levels before NIV and higher minute ventilation and ventilatory ratio on the 1-st day of NIV. No healthcare workers were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. Conclusions: NIV is feasible in patients with COVID-19 and AHRF outside the intensive care unit, and it can be considered as a valuable option for the management of AHRF in these patients. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available