Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Base de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
Critical Care Conference: 42nd International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine Brussels Belgium ; 27(Supplement 1), 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2318739

RESUMEN

Introduction: The debate about optimal management of patients with COVID-19 ARDS remains, including medical treatment, ventilatory strategies, awake proning and others. COVIP is a multicentric observational study with over 3000 patients under NIV. A substudy by Polok and al. evaluated patients (PTS) >= 70 years old. At our intermediate care unit (IU) we used a strategy of high dose corticosteroid started when the work of breathing (WOB) increased, prolonged awake prone positioning (> 12 h) and high CPAP ventilatory strategy. We describe our cohort of >= 70 years old NIV PTS and compare it to COVIP substudy results. Method(s): Descriptive retrospective study. Data were collected from electronic medical records of 95 COVID-19 PTS aged 70 years old or above under NIV at the IU between September/20 and March/21. Categorical data are presented as frequency (percentage) and were compared using chi2-test. Continuous variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Cohort results were compared with those from Polok et al. COVIP substudy (COVIPss). Result(s): 95 of PTS were submitted to NIV. Median age was 76 years and 49.5% were male, versus 75.7 and 71.4% in COVIPss. Median admission SOFA score was 4 and CFS was 3 with 14% considered frail (CFS > 5). In COVIPss median SOFA was 5 and 17% of PTS were frail. The preferred mode was CPAP with median maximum pressure of 13. Mean PaO2/fiO2 ratio after start of NIV was 125, 30% < 100. NIV failure occurred in 46.3% versus 74,7% in COVIPss. Our intra-unit mortality was 31.6%. 14 PTS (14.7%) were submitted to invasive mechanical ventilation and 57% of those died. In COVIPss mortality at 30d was 52.9% in NIV and 47.7 in IMV groups. Conclusion(s): We argue that NIV is a valid option for COVID ARDS management if supported by a multifaceted strategy such as ours, using prone and CPAP for WOB control. We agree with COVIPss authors as NIV trial should be short and intubation promptly if WOB not controlled. Comparison with COVIP substudy NIV failure and mortality results, support our belief.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA