Comparison of COVID-19 survival in relation to CPAP length of treatment and by comorbidity and transmission setting (community or hospital acquired) in a medium-sized UK hospital in 2020: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) length of treatment effect on survival of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in a medium-sized UK Hospital, and how this effect changes according to the patient's comorbidity and COVID-19 route of acquisition (community or nosocomial) during the two waves in 2020. SETTING: The acute inpatient unit in Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust (WWL), a medium-sized NHS Trust in north-west of England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of all confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted in WWL during 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 1830 patients (568 first wave, 1262 s wave) with antigen confirmed COVID-19 disease and severe acute respiratory syndrome admitted between 17 March 2020 (first confirmed COVID-19 case) and 31 December 2020. OUTCOME MEASURE: COVID-19 survival rate in all patients and survival rate in potentially hospital-acquired COVID-19 (PHA) patients were modelled using a predictor set which include comorbidities (eg, obesity, diabetes, chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)), wave, age, sex and care home residency, and interventions (remdesivir, dexamethasone, CPAP, intensive care unit (ICU), intubation). Secondary outcome measure was CPAP length, which was modelled using the same predictors of the survival rate. RESULTS: Mortality rate in the second wave was significantly lower than in the first wave (43.4% vs 28.1%, p<0.001), although for PHA COVID-19 patients mortality did not reduce, remaining at very high levels independently of wave and CPAP length. For all cohort, statistical modelling identified CPAP length (HR 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96) and women (HR 95% CI 0.71 to 0.81) were associated with improved survival, while being older age (HR 95% CI 1.02 to 1.03) admitted from care homes (HR 95% CI 2.22 to 2.39), IHD (HR 95% CI 1.13 to 1.24), CKD (HR 95% CI 1.14 to 1.25), obesity (HR 95% CI 1.18 to 1.28) and COPD-emphysema (HR 95% CI 1.18 to 1.57) were associated with reduced survival. Despite the detrimental effect of comorbidities, patients with CKD (95% CI 16% to 30% improvement in survival), IHD (95% CI 1% to 10% improvement in survival) and asthma (95% CI 8% to 30% improvement in survival) benefitted most from CPAP length, while no significant survival difference was found for obese and patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of an Acute Trust during the COVID-19 outbreak of 2020 is documented and indicates the importance of care home and hospitals in disease acquisition. Death rates fell between the first and second wave only for community-acquired COVID-19 patients. The fall was associated to CPAP length, especially for some comorbidities. While uncovering some risk and protective factors of mortality in COVID-19 studies, the study also unravels how little is known about PHA COVID-19 and the interaction between CPAP and some comorbidities.

CPAP management of COVID-19 respiratory failure: a first quantitative analysis from an inpatient service evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) in the management of respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 infection. Early clinical management with limited use of CPAP (3% of patients) was compared with a later clinical management strategy which had a higher proportion of CPAP use (15%). DESIGN: Retrospective case-controlled service evaluation for a single UK National Health Service (NHS) Trust during March-June 2020 designed and conducted solely to estimate the effects of current care. SETTING: The acute inpatient unit in Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, a medium-sized English NHS Trust. PARTICIPANTS: 206 patients with antigen confirmed COVID-19 disease and severe acute respiratory syndrome admitted between 17 March 2020 and 3 April 2020 for the early group (controls), and between 10 April 2020 and 11 May 2020 for the late group (cases). Follow-up for all cases was until 11 June by which time all patients had a final outcome of death or discharge. Both groups were composed of 103 patients. Cases and controls were matched by age and sex. OUTCOME MEASURE: The outcome measure was the proportion of patients surviving at time t (time from the positive result of COVID-19 test to discharge/death date). The predictors were CPAP intervention, intubation, residence in care homes and comorbidities (renal, pulmonary, cardiac, hypertension and diabetes). A stratified Cox proportional hazard for clustered data (via generalised estimating equations) and model selection algorithms were employed to identify the effect of CPAP on patients' survival and the effect on gas exchange as measured by alveolar arterial (A-a) gradient and timing of CPAP treatment on CPAP patients' survival. RESULTS: CPAP was found to be significantly (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.40) associated with lower risk of death in patients with hospital stay equal to, or below 7 days. However, for longer hospitalisation CPAP was found to be associated with increased risk of death (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.12). When CPAP was initiated within 4 days of hospital admission, the survival probability was above 73% (95% CI 53% to 99%). In addition, lower A-a gradient was associated with lower risk of death in CPAP patients (HR 1.011, 95% CI 1.010 to 1.013). The selected model (best fit) was stratified by sex and clustered by case/control groups. The predictors were age, intubation, hypertension and the residency from care homes, which were found to be statistically significantly associated with patient's death/discharge. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is a simple and cost-effective intervention. It has been established for care of other respiratory disorders but not for COVID-19 respiratory failure. This evaluation establishes that CPAP as a potentially viable treatment option for this group of patients during the first days of hospital admission. As yet there is limited availability of quantitative research on CPAP use for COVID-19. Whist this work is hampered by both the relatively small sample size and retrospective design (which reduced the ability to control potential confounders), it represents evidence of the significant benefit of early CPAP intervention. This evaluation should stimulate further research questions and larger study designs on the potential benefit of CPAP for COVID-19 infections. Globally, this potentially beneficial low cost and low intensity therapy could have added significance economically for healthcare provision in less developed countries.