Alternative CPAP methods for the treatment of secondary serious respiratory failure due to pneumonia by COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The use of devices that provide continuous positive pressure in the airway has shown improvement in various pathologies that cause respiratory failure. In the COVID 19 pandemic episode the use of these devices has become widespread, but, due to the shortage of conventional CPAP devices, alternative devices have been manufactured. The objective of this study is to describe the use of these devices, as well as their efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data are collected from patients admitted for Pneumonia due to COVID 19 at the IFEMA Field Hospital. Data are collected from 23 patients with respiratory failure and need for ventilatory support. RESULTS: Study carried out on a total of 23 patients, dated admission to IFEMA. Alternative CPAP was used in five patients (21.7%), while ventilatory support with a reservoir mask or Ventimask Venturi effect was used in the remaining 18 patients (78.3%). A progressive increase in saturation is observed in those patients in whom alternative CPAP was used (from 94% on average to 98% and 99% on average after 30 and 60 min with the mask, respectively), although this change was not significant (p = 0.058 and p = 0.122 respectively). No significant change in RF was observed at the beginning and end of the measurement in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.423), but among those who did not use alternative CPAP (p = 0.001). A statistically significant improvement in the variable oxygen saturation / fraction inspired by oxygen is observed in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: The use of these devices has helped the ventilatory work of several patients by improving their oxygenation parameters. To better observe the evolution of patients undergoing this therapy and compare them with patients with other types of ventilatory support, further studies are necessary.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El uso de dispositivos que aportan presión positiva continua en la vía aérea ha demostrado mejoría en diversas patologías que producen insuficiencia respiratoria. En el episodio de pandemia por COVID 19 el uso de estos dispositivos se ha generalizado, pero, debido a la escasez de dispositivos convencionales de CPAP, se han fabricado dispositivos alternativos. El objetivo de este estudio es describir el uso de estos dispositivos, así como su eficacia. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se recogen datos de pacientes ingresados por Neumonía por COVID 19 en el Hospital de campaña de IFEMA. Se recogen datos de pacientes con insuficiencia respiratoria y necesidad de soporte ventilatorio. RESULTADOS: Estudio realizado sobre un total de 23 pacientes, con fecha ingreso en IFEMA. Se empleó CPAP alternativa en cinco pacientes (21,7%), mientras que en los 18 pacientes restantes (78,3%) se usó soporte ventilatorio con mascarilla reservorio o Ventimask efecto Venturi. Se observa un aumento progresivo de la saturación en aquellos pacientes en los que se empleó CPAP alternativa (de 94% de promedio a 98% y 99% de promedio tras 30 y 60 minutos con la máscara, respectivamente), aunque este cambio no resultó significativo (p = 0,058 y p = 0,122 respectivamente). No se observó un cambio significativo de frecuencia respiratoria al inicio y final de la medición en pacientes que usaron CPAP alternativa (p = 0,423) pero si entre los que no la usaron (p = 0,001). Se observa una mejoría estadísticamente significativa en la variable Saturación de oxigeno / Fracción inspirado de oxígeno en los pacientes que usaron CPAP alternativa (p = 0,040). CONCLUSIÓN: El uso de estos dispositivos ha ayudado al trabajo ventilatorio de varios pacientes mejorando sus parámetros de oxigenación. Para observar mejor la evolución de los pacientes sometidos a esta terapia y compararlos con pacientes con otro tipo de soporte ventilatorio, son necesarios más estudios en los que se aleatorice su uso.

Critical Care in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Pregnant Women: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

Evidence suggests that pregnant women are at a higher risk of complications compared to the general population when infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the reasons that lead them to need intensive care are not clear. This is a prospective multicenter study of SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant women, registered by the Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group, with the objective to define the characteristics of the mothers who were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and to investigate the causes and risk factors for ICU admission. A total of 1347 infected pregnant women were registered and analyzed, of whom, 35 (2.6%) were admitted to the ICU. No differences in maternal characteristics or comorbidities were observed between ICU and non-ICU patients, except for in vitro fertilization and multiple pregnancies. The main causes of admission to the ICU were non-obstetric causes (worsening of the maternal condition and respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 40%) and a combination of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms and obstetrical complications (31.4%). The multivariable logistic analysis confirmed a higher risk of ICU admission when pre-eclampsia or hemorrhagic events coexist with pneumonia. The incidence of thromboembolic events and disseminated intravascular coagulation were also significantly higher among patients admitted to the ICU. Therefore, surveillance and rapid intervention should be intensified in SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnant women with the mentioned risk factors and complications. Emphasis should always be placed on anticoagulant therapy in these patients due to the increased thromboembolic risk, C-section surgery and immobilization in the ICU.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and C-Section: A Prospective Observational Study.

Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. In addition to unfavorable perinatal outcomes, there has been an increase in obstetric interventions. With this study, we aimed to clarify the reasons, using Robson's classification model, and risk factors for cesarean section (C-section) in SARS-CoV-2-infected mothers and their perinatal results. This was a prospective observational study that was carried out in 79 hospitals (Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group) with a cohort of 1704 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive pregnant women that were registered consecutively between 26 February and 5 November 2020. The data from 1248 pregnant women who delivered vaginally (vaginal + operative vaginal) was compared with those from 456 (26.8%) who underwent a C-section. C-section patients were older with higher rates of comorbidities, in vitro fertilization and multiple pregnancies (p < 0.05) compared with women who delivered vaginally. Moreover, C-section risk was associated with the presence of pneumonia (p < 0.001) and 41.1% of C-sections in patients with pneumonia were preterm (Robson's 10th category). However, delivery care was similar between asymptomatic and mild-moderate symptomatic patients (p = 0.228) and their predisposing factors to C-section were the presence of uterine scarring (due to a previous C-section) and the induction of labor or programmed C-section for unspecified obstetric reasons. On the other hand, higher rates of hemorrhagic events, hypertensive disorders and thrombotic events were observed in the C-section group (p < 0.001 for all three outcomes), as well as for ICU admission. These findings suggest that this type of delivery was associated with the mother's clinical conditions that required a rapid and early termination of pregnancy.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in early first-trimester miscarriages: a prospective observational study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and first-trimester miscarriage? DESIGN: This multicentre prospective study included a cohort of women with first-trimester miscarriages registered consecutively by seven Spanish hospitals where universal PCR screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection was implemented with both miscarriages and deliveries. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among women with first-trimester miscarriages was compared with the rate registered in women on admission to the delivery ward within the same time frame using a mixed-effects Poisson regression analysis, considering 'hospital' as random effect. The characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients who miscarried were compared through two-sided univariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 301 miscarriages were registered, 11 (3.7%) to SARS-CoV-2 infected and 290 to non-infected women. In the same time frame as the miscarriages, 1936 deliveries were registered, 44 [2.3%] of them were SARS-CoV-2 infected. No differences in terms of SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence were observed between infected miscarriages and infected deliveries (P = 0.233). Regarding the differences observed between miscarriages in SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative women, more inevitable miscarriages occurred in the group of infected women (36.4% versus 16.5% in non-infected women; P = 0.004), and there was greater surgical management of miscarriages (27.3% versus 8.2% in non-infected women; P = 0.036), probably in line with the greater number of inevitable miscarriages observed in this group. CONCLUSIONS: No association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk of first-trimester miscarriage was observed; however, the type of miscarriage seems to differ between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative women, with inevitable miscarriage being more frequent among infected women.

Association of ABO and Rh blood groups with obstetric outcomes in SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnancies: A prospective study with a multivariate analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of ABO and Rh blood groups on morbidity among SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnancies. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: 78 centers of the Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group. POPULATION: Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 tested with polymerase-chain-reaction between 26-February and 5-November 2020. A cohort of 1278 SARS-CoV-2(+) pregnant women was analyzed and a concurrent comparison group of 1453 SARS-COV-2(-) patients was established. METHODS: Data were collected from medical charts. SARS-COV-2(+) was compared with SARS-COV-2(-) for differences in distribution of blood groups. We performed multivariate analysis, controlling for maternal age and ethnicity, to evaluate association of ABO and Rh blood groups with maternal and perinatal outcomes in SARS-CoV-2(+) patients with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Medical morbidity: Symptomatic COVID-19 and medical complications. Obstetric outcomes: caesarean delivery, preterm deliveries, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), hemorrhagic events, pre-eclampsia, maternal and neonatal mortality, stillbirth. RESULTS: Differences were noted between blood types and Rh for age and ethnicity comparing SARS-CoV-2(+) and SARS-CoV-2(-) groups (p < 0.05). Among the SARS-CoV-2(+) cohort, the odds of symptomatic COVID-19 and obstetric hemorrhagic event were higher in Rh+ vs Rh- mothers (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02-2.14, p = 0.037, and aOR 8.72, 95% CI 1.20-63.57, p = 0.033, respectively), and PPROM were higher among blood type A vs non-A mothers (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.01-4.18, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: In SARS-CoV-2(+) pregnant women, Rh- status was associated with a lower risk of symptomatic COVID-19, while Rh+ and blood group A were associated with obstetric hemorrhage and PPROM, respectively.

Pregnancy Outcomes and SARS-CoV-2 Infection: The Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group Study.

Pregnant women who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. With this study, we aimed to better understand the relationship between maternal infection and perinatal outcomes, especially preterm births, and the underlying medical and interventionist factors. This was a prospective observational study carried out in 78 centers (Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group) with a cohort of 1347 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive pregnant women registered consecutively between 26 February and 5 November 2020, and a concurrent sample of PCR-negative mothers. The patients' information was collected from their medical records, and the association of SARS-CoV-2 and perinatal outcomes was evaluated by univariable and multivariate analyses. The data from 1347 SARS-CoV-2-positive pregnancies were compared with those from 1607 SARS-CoV-2-negative pregnancies. Differences were observed between both groups in premature rupture of membranes (15.5% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001); venous thrombotic events (1.5% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001); and severe pre-eclampsia incidence (40.6 vs. 15.6%, p = 0.001), which could have been overestimated in the infected cohort due to the shared analytical signs between this hypertensive disorder and COVID-19. In addition, more preterm deliveries were observed in infected patients (11.1% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001) mainly due to an increase in iatrogenic preterm births. The prematurity in SARS-CoV-2-affected pregnancies results from a predisposition to end the pregnancy because of maternal disease (pneumonia and pre-eclampsia, with or without COVID-19 symptoms).

Perinatal outcomes of pregnancies resulting from assisted reproduction technology in SARS-CoV-2-infected women: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perinatal and maternal outcomes of pregnancies in women infected with SARS-CoV-2, comparing spontaneous and in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies (with either own or donor oocytes). DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, observational study. SETTING: 78 centers participating in the Spanish COVID19 Registry. PATIENT(S): 1,347 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 positive results registered consecutively between February 26 and November 5, 2020. INTERVENTION(S): The patients' information was collected from their medical records, and multivariable regression analyses were performed, controlling for maternal age and the clinical presentation of the infection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Obstetrics and neonatal outcomes, pregnancy comorbidities, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation need, and medical conditions. RESULT(S): The IVF group included 74 (5.5%) women whereas the spontaneous pregnancy group included 1,275 (94.5%) women. The operative delivery rate was high in all patients, especially in the IVF group, where cesarean section became the most frequent method of delivery (55.4%, compared with 26.1% of the spontaneous pregnancy group). The reason for cesarean section was induction failure in 56.1% of the IVF patients. IVF women had more gestational hypertensive disorders (16.2% vs. 4.5% among spontaneous pregnancy women, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.45-10.93) irrespective of oocyte origin. The higher rate of intensive care unit admittance observed in the IVF group (8.1% vs. 2.4% in the spontaneous pregnancy group) was attributed to preeclampsia (aOR 11.82, 95% CI 5.25-25.87), not to the type of conception. CONCLUSION(S): A high rate of operative delivery was observed in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2, especially in those with IVF pregnancies; method of conception did not affect fetal or maternal outcomes, except for preeclampsia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04558996.

The association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and preterm delivery: a prospective study with a multivariable analysis.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, the cause of COVID-19 disease) exposure in pregnancy, compared to non-exposure, is associated with infection-related obstetric morbidity. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre prospective study in pregnancy based on a universal antenatal screening program for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Throughout Spain 45 hospitals tested all women at admission on delivery ward using polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) for COVID-19 since late March 2020. The cohort of positive mothers and the concurrent sample of negative mothers was followed up until 6-weeks post-partum. Multivariable logistic regression analysis, adjusting for known confounding variables, determined the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of the association of SARS-CoV-2 infection and obstetric outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preterm delivery (primary), premature rupture of membranes and neonatal intensive care unit admissions. RESULTS: Among 1009 screened pregnancies, 246 were SARS-CoV-2 positive. Compared to negative mothers (763 cases), SARS-CoV-2 infection increased the odds of preterm birth (34 vs 51, 13.8% vs 6.7%, aOR 2.12, 95% CI 1.32-3.36, p = 0.002); iatrogenic preterm delivery was more frequent in infected women (4.9% vs 1.3%, p = 0.001), while the occurrence of spontaneous preterm deliveries was statistically similar (6.1% vs 4.7%). An increased risk of premature rupture of membranes at term (39 vs 75, 15.8% vs 9.8%, aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.11-2.57, p = 0.013) and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (23 vs 18, 9.3% vs 2.4%, aOR 4.62, 95% CI 2.43-8.94, p <  0.001) was also observed in positive mothers. CONCLUSION: This prospective multicentre study demonstrated that pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 have more infection-related obstetric morbidity. This hypothesis merits evaluation of a causal association in further research.

Obstetric Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Asymptomatic Pregnant Women.

Around two percent of asymptomatic women in labor test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Spain. Families and care providers face childbirth with uncertainty. We determined if SARS-CoV-2 infection at delivery among asymptomatic mothers had different obstetric outcomes compared to negative patients. This was a multicenter prospective study based on universal antenatal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection. A total of 42 hospitals tested women admitted for delivery using polymerase chain reaction, from March to May 2020. We included positive mothers and a sample of negative mothers asymptomatic throughout the antenatal period, with 6-week postpartum follow-up. Association between SARS-CoV-2 and obstetric outcomes was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analyses. In total, 174 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnancies were compared with 430 asymptomatic negative pregnancies. No differences were observed between both groups in key maternal and neonatal outcomes at delivery and follow-up, with the exception of prelabor rupture of membranes at term (adjusted odds ratio 1.88, 95% confidence interval 1.13-3.11; p = 0.015). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive mothers have higher odds of prelabor rupture of membranes at term, without an increase in perinatal complications, compared to negative mothers. Pregnant women testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission for delivery should be reassured by their healthcare workers in the absence of symptoms.

Impact of Recommended Maternal Vaccination Programs on the Clinical Presentation of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Prospective Observational Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions about the possible cross immunity resulting from common vaccination programs and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, the Spanish Obstetric Emergency group performed a multicenter prospective study on the vaccination status of Influenza and Tdap (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine boost administered in adulthood) in consecutive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a pregnancy cohort, in order to assess its possible association with the clinical presentation and severity of symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as to determine the factors that may affect vaccination adherence. A total of 1150 SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnant women from 78 Spanish hospitals were analyzed: 183 had not received either vaccine, 23 had been vaccinated for Influenza only, 529 for Tdap only and 415 received both vaccines. No association was observed between the vaccination status and the clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or the severity of symptoms. However, a lower adherence to the administration of both vaccines was observed in the Latin-American subgroup. Based on the results above, we reinforce the importance of maternal vaccination programs in the actual pandemic. Health education campaigns should be specially targeted to groups less likely to participate in these programs, as well as for a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign.

[Alternative CPAP methods for the treatment of secondary serious respiratory failure due to pneumonia by COVID-19]. / Métodos alternativos de CPAP para el tratamiento de insuficiencia respiratoria grave secundaria a neumonía por COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The use of devices that provide continuous positive pressure in the airway has shown improvement in various pathologies that cause respiratory failure. In the COVID-19 pandemic episode the use of these devices has become widespread, but, due to the shortage of conventional continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices, alternative devices have been manufactured. The objective of this study is to describe the use of these devices, as well as their efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data are collected from patients admitted for pneumonia due to COVID-19 at the IFEMA Field Hospital. Data are collected from 23 patients with respiratory failure and need for ventilatory support. RESULTS: Study carried out on a total of 23 patients, dated admission to IFEMA. Alternative CPAP was used in five patients (21.7%), while ventilatory support with a reservoir mask or Ventimask Venturi effect was used in the remaining 18 patients (78.3%). A progressive increase in saturation is observed in those patients in whom alternative CPAP was used (from 94% on average to 98 and 99% on average after 30 and 60 minutes with the mask, respectively), although this change was not significant (p = 0.058 and p = 0.122, respectively). No significant change in RF was observed at the beginning and end of the measurement in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.423), but among those who did not use alternative CPAP (p = 0.001). A statistically significant improvement in the variable oxygen saturation / fraction inspired by oxygen is observed in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.040) CONCLUSION: The use of these devices has helped the ventilatory work of several patients by improving their oxygenation parameters. To better observe the evolution of patients undergoing this therapy and compare them with patients with other types of ventilatory support, further studies are necessary.