First-attempt intubation success and complications in patients with COVID-19 undergoing emergency intubation.

Objectives: To evaluate the first-attempt success rates and complications of endotracheal intubation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients by emergency physicians. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted from March 24, 2020 through May 28, 2020 at the emergency department (ED) of an urban, academic trauma center. We enrolled patients consecutively admitted to the ED with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 submitted to endotracheal intubation. No patients were excluded. The primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success, defined as successful endotracheal tube placement with the first device passed (endotracheal tube) during the first laryngoscope insertion confirmed with capnography. Secondary outcomes included the following complications: hypotension, hypoxemia, aspiration, and esophageal intubation. Results: A total of 112 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were enrolled. Median age was 61 years and 61 patients (54%) were men. The primary outcome, first-attempt intubation success, was achieved in 82% of patients. Among the 20 patients who were not intubated on the first attempt, 75% were intubated on the second attempt and 20% on the third attempt; cricothyrotomy was performed in 1 patient. Forty-eight (42%) patients were hypotensive and required norepinephrine immediately post-intubation. Fifty-eight (52%) experienced peri-intubation hypoxemia, and 2 patients (2%) had cardiac arrest. There were no cases of failed intubation resulting in death up to 24 hours after the procedure. Conclusion: Emergency physicians achieve high success rates when intubating COVID19 patients, although complications are frequent. However, these findings should be considered provisional until their generalizability is assessed in their institutions and setting.

Mortality and other outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease pneumonia admitted to the emergency department: A prospective observational Brazilian study.

BACKGROUND: The first cases of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Brazil were diagnosed in February 2020. Our Emergency Department (ED) was designated as a COVID-19 exclusive service. We report our first 500 confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia patients. METHODS: From 14 March to 16 May 2020, we enrolled all patients admitted to our ED that had a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Infection was confirmed via nasopharyngeal swabs or tracheal aspirate PCR. The outcomes included hospital discharge, invasive mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital death, among others. RESULTS: From 2219 patients received in the ED, we included 506 with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. We found that 333 patients were discharged home (65.9%), 153 died (30.2%), and 20 (3.9%) remained in the hospital. A total of 300 patients (59.3%) required ICU admission, and 227 (44.9%) needed invasive ventilation. The multivariate analysis found age, number of comorbidities, extension of ground glass opacities on chest CT and troponin with a direct relationship with all-cause mortality, whereas dysgeusia, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-ii receptor blocker and number of lymphocytes with an inverse relationship with all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This was a sample of severe patients with COVID-19, with 59.2% admitted to the ICU and 41.5% requiring mechanical ventilator support. We were able to ascertain the outcome in majority (96%) of patients. While the overall mortality was 30.2%, mortality for intubated patients was 55.9%. Multivariate analysis agreed with data found in other studies although the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-ii receptor blocker as a protective factor could be promising but would need further studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Brazilian registry of clinical trials: RBR-5d4dj5.

Correction: Mortality and other outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease pneumonia admitted to the emergency department: A prospective observational Brazilian study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244532.].

Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Exploratory Findings in a Single-center Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been widely used in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure to avoid intubation despite limited evidence. Our objective was to evaluate if prone positioning is associated with a reduced intubation rate when compared to usual care. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study in the emergency department of a large quaternary hospital in Sao Paulo. We retrieved data from all admitted patients in need of oxygen supplementation (>3 L/min) and tachypnea (>24 ipm) from March 1 to April 30, 2020, excluding those who had any contraindication to the prone position or who had an immediate need for intubation. The primary endpoint was endotracheal intubation up to 15 days. Secondary outcomes included a 6-point clinical outcome ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation-free days, admission to the intensive care unit, and need of hemodialysis and of vasoactive drugs, all assessed at or up to 15 days. We analyzed unadjusted and adjusted effect estimates with Cox proportional hazards models, logistic regression, quantile regression, and sensitivity analyses using propensity score models. RESULTS: Of 925 suspected COVID-19 patients admitted off mechanical ventilation, 166 patients fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria: 57 were exposed to prone positioning and 109 to usual care. In the intervention group, 33 (58%) were intubated versus 53 (49%) in the control group. We observed no difference in intubation rates in the univariate analysis (hazard ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78 to 1.88, p = 0.39) nor in the adjusted analysis (hazard ratio = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.49, p = 0.69). Results were robust to the sensitivity analyses. Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Awake prone positioning was not associated with lower intubation rates. Caution is necessary before widespread adoption of this technique, pending results of clinical trials.