Impact of time to intubation on mortality and pulmonary sequelae in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study.

QUESTION: We evaluated whether the time between first respiratory support and intubation of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) due to COVID-19 was associated with mortality or pulmonary sequelae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort of critical COVID-19 patients on IMV. Patients were classified as early intubation if they were intubated within the first 48 h from the first respiratory support or delayed intubation if they were intubated later. Surviving patients were evaluated after hospital discharge. RESULTS: We included 205 patients (140 with early IMV and 65 with delayed IMV). The median [p25;p75] age was 63 [56.0; 70.0] years, and 74.1% were male. The survival analysis showed a significant increase in the risk of mortality in the delayed group with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 2.45 (95% CI 1.29-4.65). The continuous predictor time to IMV showed a nonlinear association with the risk of in-hospital mortality. A multivariate mortality model showed that delay of IMV was a factor associated with mortality (HR of 2.40; 95% CI 1.42-4.1). During follow-up, patients in the delayed group showed a worse DLCO (mean difference of - 10.77 (95% CI - 18.40 to - 3.15), with a greater number of affected lobes (+ 1.51 [95% CI 0.89-2.13]) and a greater TSS (+ 4.35 [95% CI 2.41-6.27]) in the chest CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who required IMV, the delay in intubation from the first respiratory support was associated with an increase in hospital mortality and worse pulmonary sequelae during follow-up.

Early intubation and clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the timing of the application of mechanical ventilation among patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is insufficient. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of early intubation compared to late intubation in patients with severe and critical COVID-19. METHODS: For this study, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases as well as one Korean domestic database on July 15, 2021. We updated the search monthly from September 10, 2021 to February 10, 2022. Studies that compared early intubation with late intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated as measures of effect using the random-effects model for the pooled estimates of in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), hospital LOS, ICU-free days, and ventilator-free days. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the definition of early intubation and the index time. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, we used the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized studies 2.0. RESULTS: Of the 1523 records identified, 12 cohort studies, involving 2843 patients with severe COVID-19 were eligible. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality (8 studies, n = 795; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10, P = 0.32, I2 = 33%), LOS in the ICU (9 studies, n = 978; MD -1.77 days, 95% CI -4.61 to 1.07 days, P = 0.22, I2 = 78%), MV duration (9 studies, n = 1,066; MD -0.03 day, 95% CI -1.79 to 1.72 days, P = 0.97, I2 = 49%), ICU-free days (1 study, n = 32; 0 day vs. 0 day; P = 0.39), and ventilator-free days (4 studies, n = 344; MD 0.94 day, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.43 days, P = 0.74, I2 = 54%) between the early and late intubation groups. However, the early intubation group had significant advantage in terms of hospital LOS (6 studies, n = 738; MD -4.32 days, 95% CI -7.20 to -1.44 days, P = 0.003, I2 = 45%). CONCLUSION: This study showed no significant difference in both primary and secondary outcomes between the early intubation and late intubation groups. Trial registration This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 16 February, 2022 (registration number CRD42022311122).

Does the intubation timeline affect the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients? A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Effective strategies for managing coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients suffering from acute respiratory distress are constantly evolving. The timeline and threshold for transitioning from non-invasive ventilation to intermittent mandatory ventilation in critical cases who develop COVID-19-related respiratory distress are undetermined. The present research intends to investigate if emergency room intubations in COVID-19 patients affect mortality. Methods: Between January 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021, we retrospectively reviewed chart analysis on all patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 screening and who underwent endotracheal intubation. Depending on when the intubation was performed; early in the emergency room or delayed outside the emergency room, patients were separated into two cohorts. In addition to comorbid clinical manifestations, the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, and in-hospital mortality were all recorded as demographic and clinical information. Results: Fifty-eight of the 224 corona-positive patients who underwent intubation had their intubations performed in the emergency room. Age, sex, alcohol use, and smoking status did not significantly differ between the two categories at the baseline. The mean qSOFA score was higher in the early intubation cohort (3.5; p < 0.000) along with more underlying comorbidities (3.0; p < 0.000). When compared to the late intubation cohort (45.78%), patients treated with early intubation had a significantly greater death rate (67.24%). Conclusion: In summary, we discovered that patients who underwent intubation in the emergency units exhibited a high quick SOFA score as well as maximum co-morbid conditions than patients intubated somewhere else in the hospital. The findings of our investigation imply that intubating patients too early might be risky.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing early versus late intubation from initial hospital admission: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.