Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Evaluation of aerosolized epoprostenol for hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019.
Kataria, Vivek; Ryman, Klayton; Tsai-Nguyen, Ginger; Wakwaya, Yosafe; Modrykamien, Ariel.
  • Kataria V; Department of Pharmacy, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
  • Ryman K; Department of Pharmacy, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
  • Tsai-Nguyen G; Department of Critical Care-Medical Intensive Care Unit, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
  • Wakwaya Y; Department of Critical Care-Medical Intensive Care Unit, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
  • Modrykamien A; Department of Critical Care-Medical Intensive Care Unit, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Hosp Pract (1995) ; 50(2): 118-123, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1713461
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals.

METHODS:

This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and 30 in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. The need for mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated.

RESULTS:

The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders.

CONCLUSION:

The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Respiratory Insufficiency / Noninvasive Ventilation / COVID-19 Type of study: Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: Hosp Pract (1995) Journal subject: Hospitals Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 21548331.2022.2047310

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Respiratory Insufficiency / Noninvasive Ventilation / COVID-19 Type of study: Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: Hosp Pract (1995) Journal subject: Hospitals Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: 21548331.2022.2047310