ABSTRACT
BackgroundGuidance in COVID-19 respiratory failure has favoured early intubation, with concerns over the use of CPAP. We adopted early CPAP and self-proning, and evaluated the safety and efficacy of this approach. MethodsThis retrospective observational study included all patients with a positive COVID-19 PCR, and others with high clinical suspicion. Our protocol advised early CPAP and self-proning for severe cases, aiming to prevent rather than respond to deterioration. CPAP was provided outside critical care by ward staff supported by physiotherapists and an intensive critical care outreach program. Data were analysed descriptively and compared against a large UK cohort (ISARIC). Results559 patients admitted before 1/May/20 were included. 376 were discharged alive, and 183 died. 165 patients (29.5%) received CPAP, 40 (7.2%) were admitted to critical care and 28 (5.0%) were ventilated. Hospital mortality was 32.7%, and 50% for critical care. Following CPAP, 62% of patients with S:F or P:F ratios indicating moderate or severe ARDS, who were candidates for escalation, avoided intubation. Figures for critical care admission, intubation and hospital mortality are lower than ISARIC, whilst critical care mortality is similar. Following ISARIC proportions we would have admitted 92 patients to critical care and intubated 55. Using the described protocol, we intubated 28 patients from 40 admissions, and remained within our expanded critical care capacity. ConclusionBradfords protocol produced good results despite our population having high levels of co-morbidity and ethnicities associated with poor outcomes. In particular we avoided overloading critical care capacity. We advocate this approach as both effective and safe. Social media summaryThe use of early CPAP and proning in COVID-19 was associated with lower critical care admissions, intubation, and mortality at Bradford compared to a large UK cohort (ISARIC WHO CCP-UK).
