4.7 Article

Chest X-ray Does Not Predict the Risk of Endotracheal Intubation and Escalation of Treatment in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Noninvasive Respiratory Support

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11061636

关键词

chest X-ray; coronavirus disease-19; endotracheal intubation; noninvasive respiratory support

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study aimed to assess whether the CARE score, previously validated in COVID-19 patients, could predict the need for endotracheal intubation and escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients undergoing noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS). The study found that the CARE score at NIRS initiation was not predictive of the need for endotracheal intubation or escalation of treatment.
Forms of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) have been widely used to avoid endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, inappropriate prolongation of NIRS may delay endotracheal intubation and worsen patient outcomes. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess whether the CARE score, a chest X-ray score previously validated in COVID-19 patients, may predict the need for endotracheal intubation and escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients requiring NIRS. From December 2020 to May 2021, we included 142 patients receiving NIRS who had a first chest X-ray available at NIRS initiation and a second one after 48-72 h. In 94 (66%) patients, the level of respiratory support was increased, while endotracheal intubation was required in 83 (58%) patients. The CARE score at NIRS initiation was not predictive of the need for endotracheal intubation (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.06) or escalation of treatment (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96-1.07). In conclusion, chest X-ray severity, as assessed by the CARE score, did not allow predicting endotracheal intubation or escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients undergoing NIRS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据