ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) is effective for symptom relief and respiratory support in patients with respiratory insufficiency, severe comorbidities and no indication to intubation. Experience with NIV as the ceiling of treatment in severely compromised novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients is lacking. METHODS: We evaluated 159 patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory syndrome (ARDS), 38 of whom with NIV as the ceiling of treatment, admitted to an ordinary ward and treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and respiratory physiotherapy. Treatment failure and death were correlated with clinical and laboratory parameters in the whole cohort and in patients with NIV as the ceiling of treatment. RESULTS: Patients who had NIV as the ceiling of treatment were elderly, with a low BMI and a high burden of comorbidities, showed clinical and laboratory signs of multi-organ insufficiency on admission and of rapidly deteriorating vital signs during the first week of treatment. NIV failure occurred overall in 77 (48%) patients, and 27/38 patients with NIV as the ceiling of treatment died. Congestive heart failure, chronic benign haematological diseases and inability/refusal to receive respiratory physiotherapy were independently associated to NIV failure and mortality. Need for increased positive end-expiratory pressures and low platelets were associated with NIV failure. Death was associated to cerebrovascular disease, need for CPAP cycles longer than 12h and, in the subgroup of patients with NIV as the ceiling of treatment, was heralded by vital sign deterioration within 48 h. CONCLUSIONS: NIV and physiotherapy are a viable treatment option for patients with severe COVID-19 and severe comorbidities.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients frequently develop respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Data on long-term survival of patients who had severe COVID-19 are insufficient. We assessed and compared two-year survival, CT imaging, quality of life, and functional recovery of COVID-19 ARDS patients requiring respiratory support with invasive (IMV) versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted up to May 28th, 2020, who required IMV or NIV, and survived to hospital discharge were enrolled. Patients were contacted two years after discharge to assess vital status, functional, psychological, and cognitive outcomes using validated scales. Patients with persistent respiratory symptoms or high burden of residual lung damage at previous CT scan received a two-year chest CT scan. RESULTS: Out of 61 IMV survivors, 98% were alive at two-year follow-up, and 52 completed the questionnaire. Out of 82 survivors receiving NIV only, 94% were alive at two years, and 47 completed the questionnaire. We found no major differences between invasively and noninvasively ventilated patients, with overall acceptable functional recovery. Among the 99 patients completing the questionnaire, 23 have more than moderate exertional dyspnea. Chest CT scans showed that 4 patients (all received IMV) had fibrotic-like changes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 and were discharged from hospital had a 96% survival rate at the two-year follow-up. There was no difference in overall recovery and quality of life between patients who did and did not require IMV, although respiratory morbidity remains high.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Exploring the association between frailty and mortality in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 respiratory insufficiency treated with continuous positive airway pressure. METHODS: Frailty was measured using a Frailty Index (FI) created by using the baseline assessment data on comorbidities and body mass index and baseline blood test results (including pH, lactate dehydrogenase, renal and liver function, inflammatory indexes and anemia). FI > 0.25 identified frail individuals. RESULTS: Among the 159 included individuals (81% men, median age of 68) frailty was detected in 69% of the patients (median FI score 0.3 ± 0.08). Frailty was associated to an increased mortality (adjusted HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.02-3.88, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is highly prevalent among patients with COVID-19, predicts poorer outcomes independently of age. A personalization of care balancing the risk and benefit of treatments (especially the invasive ones) in such complex patients is pivotal.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Frailty , Respiratory Insufficiency , Aged , Comorbidity , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Female , Frail Elderly , Frailty/epidemiology , Geriatric Assessment/methods , Humans , Male , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 long-term sequelae are ill-defined since only a few studies have explored the long-term consequences of this disease so far. AIMS: To evaluate the 6-month respiratory outcome and exercise capacity of COVID-19 acute respiratory failure (ARF) patients treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during the first wave of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective observational study included COVID-19 patients with ARF. Interventions included CPAP during hospitalisation and 6-month follow up. Frailty assessment was carried out through frailty index (FI), pO2 /FiO2 during hospitalisation and at follow up, respiratory parameters, 6-min walking test (6MWT) and the modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) and Borg scale at follow up. RESULTS: More than half of the patients had no dyspnoea according to the mMRC scale. Lower in-hospital pO2 /FiO2 correlated with higher Borg scale levels after 6MWT (ρ 0.27; P 0.04) at the follow-up visit. FI was positively correlated with length of hospitalisation (ρ 0.3; P 0.03) and negatively with the 6MWT distance walked (ρ -0.36; P 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Robust and frail patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with CPAP outside the intensive care unit setting had good respiratory parameters and exercise capacity at 6-month follow up, although more severe patients had slightly poorer respiratory performance compared with patients with higher PaO2 /FiO2 and lower FI.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Insufficiency , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Exercise Tolerance , Humans , Pandemics , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of interleukin (IL)-6 blockade with sarilumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation. METHODS: We conducted an open-label study of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (PaO2/FiO2 <300 mm Hg) with hyperinflammation (elevated inflammatory markers and serum IL-6 levels). Sarilumab 400 mg was administered intravenously in addition to standard of care and results were compared with contemporary matched patients treated with standard of care alone. Clinical improvement, mortality, safety and predictors of response were assessed at 28 days. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were treated with sarilumab and 28 contemporary patients receiving standard of care alone were used as controls. At day 28 of follow-up, 61% of patients treated with sarilumab experienced clinical improvement and 7% died. These findings were not significantly different from the comparison group (clinical improvement 64%, mortality 18%; p=NS). Baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio >100 mm Hg and lung consolidation <17% at CT scan predicted clinical improvement in patients treated with sarilumab. Median time to clinical improvement in patients with lung consolidation <17% was shorter after sarilumab (10 days) than after standard treatment (24 days; p=0.01). The rate of infection and pulmonary thrombosis was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: At day 28, overall clinical improvement and mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 were not significantly different between sarilumab and standard of care. Sarilumab was associated with faster recovery in a subset of patients showing minor lung consolidation at baseline.