Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 41(4): 101092, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1803333

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Switzerland experienced two waves of COVID-19 in 2020, but with a different ICU admission and treatment management strategy. The timing of ICU admission and intubation remains a matter of debate in severe patients. The aim of our study was to describe the characteristics of ICU patients between two subsequent waves of COVID-19 who underwent a different management strategy and to assess whether the timing of intubation was associated with differences in mortality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of all adult patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who required intubation between the 9th of March 2020 and the 9th of January 2021 in the intensive care unit (ICU) at Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three patients were intubated during the study period; 124 during the first wave, and 99 during the second wave. Patients admitted to the ICU during the second wave had a higher SAPS II severity score (52.5 vs. 60; p = 0.01). The time from hospital admission to intubation was significantly longer during the second compared to the first wave (4 days [IQR, 1-7] vs. 2 days [IQR, 0-4]; p < 0.01). All-cause ICU mortality was significantly higher during the second wave (42% vs. 23%; p < 0.01). In a multivariate analysis, the delay between hospital admission and intubation was significantly associated with ICU mortality (OR 3.25 [95% CI, 1.38-7.67]; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, delayed intubation was associated with increased mortality in patients with severe COVID-19. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal , Switzerland/epidemiology
2.
Respir Investig ; 60(3): 327-336, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768480

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The true impact of intubation and mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to October 30th, 2021 for studies containing comparative data of COVID-19 patients undergoing early versus late intubation from initial hospital admission. Early intubation was defined as intubation within 48 h of hospital admission. The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause in-hospital mortality, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) duration. RESULTS: Four cohort studies with 498 COVID-19 patients were included between February to August 2020, in which 28.6% had early intubation, and 36.0% underwent late intubation. Although the pooled hospital mortality rate was 32.1%, no significant difference in mortality rate was observed (odds ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.32-2.00; P = 0.64) among those undergoing early and late intubation. IMV duration (mean 9.62 vs. 11.77 days; P = 0.25) and RRT requirement (18.3% vs. 14.6%; OR 1.19; P = 0.59) were similar regardless of intubation timing. While age, sex, diabetes, and body mass index were comparable, patients undergoing early intubation had higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores (mean 7.00 vs. 5.17; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The timing of intubation from initial hospital admission did not significantly alter clinical outcomes during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher SOFA scores could explain early intubation. With the advancements in COVID-19 therapies, more research is required to determine optimal intubation time beyond the first wave of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitals , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 638201, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1264342

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been used to alleviate hypoxemia and dyspnea, but there is no consensus on the application of NIV in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some staff use NIV as the rescue therapy which might lead to the adverse outcomes. This study was to identify early factors associated with intubation to help the medical staff select appropriate patients for receiving NIV treatment. Methods: Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were treated with NIV in emergency department or ICU of the Third People's Hospital (the only designated hospital for treating COVID-19 in Shenzhen) between January 1 and August 31, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Thirty-nine patients with COVID-19 treated with NIV were included; of them, 16 (41%) received endotracheal intubation and 3 (8%) died. Significant differences were observed between intubated and non-intubated patients in PaO2/FiO2 before NIV initiation, hospitalization duration, NIV as the rescue therapy, and PaO2/FiO2 of ≤200 mmHg after 1-2 h of NIV initiation. Notably, 1-2 h after NIV initiation, a PaO2/FiO2 of ≤200 mmHg (odds ratio [OR], 9.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.84-47.62; P = 0.007) and NIV as the rescue therapy (OR, 5.43; 95% CI, 1.09-27.12; P = 0.039) were the risk factors for intubation. Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure receiving NIV, close attention should be paid to PaO2/FiO2 after 1-2 h of NIV initiation. Also, using NIV as rescue therapy should draw our awareness that it might delay escalation of respiratory support and lead to adverse outcomes.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL