ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We examined weather a protocol for fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) adjustment can reduce hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in COVID-19 patients mechanically ventilated. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two intensive care units (ICUs) dedicated to COVID-19 patients in Brazil. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with COVID-19 mechanically ventilated. INTERVENTIONS: One ICU followed a FiO2 adjustment protocol based on SpO2 (conservative-oxygen ICU) and the other, which did not follow the protocol, constituted the control ICU. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Pprevalence of hyperoxemia (PaO2>100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia (present on days 1 and 2), and excess oxygen use (FiO2>0.6 in patients with hyperoxemia) were compared between the two ICUs. RESULTS: 82 patients from the conservative-oxygen ICU and 145 from the control ICU were included. The conservative-oxygen ICU presented lower prevalence of hyperoxemia on day 1 (40.2% vs. 75.9%, p<0.001) and of sustained hyperoxemia (12.2% vs. 49.6%, p<0.001). Excess oxygen use was less frequent in the conservative-oxygen ICU on day 1 (18.3% vs. 52.4%, p<0.001). Being admitted in the control ICU was independently associated with hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use. Multivariable analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FiO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Following FiO2 protocol was associated with lower hyperoxemia and less excess oxygen use. Although those results were not associated with better clinical outcomes, adopting FiO2 protocol may be useful in a scenario of depleted oxygen resources, as was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective analysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65-79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P < .001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P < .001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16-1.49], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02731898.).