ABSTRACT
AIM: We aimed to characterise a large population of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outside the intensive care unit (ICU), and to ascertain whether the duration of CPAP application increased the risk of mortality for patients requiring intubation. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included adult COVID-19 patients, treated with CPAP outside ICU for hypoxaemic ARF from 1 March to 15 April, 2020. We collected demographic and clinical data, including CPAP therapeutic goal, hospital length of stay and 60-day in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The study included 537 patients with a median (interquartile range (IQR) age of 69 (60-76) years. 391 (73%) were male. According to the pre-defined CPAP therapeutic goal, 397 (74%) patients were included in the full treatment subgroup, and 140 (26%) in the do not intubate (DNI) subgroup. Median (IQR) CPAP duration was 4 (1-8) days, while hospital length of stay was 16 (9-27) days. 60-day in-hospital mortality was 34% (95% CI 0.304-0.384%) overall, and 21% (95% CI 0.169-0.249%) and 73% (95% CI 0.648-0.787%) for full treatment and DNI subgroups, respectively. In the full treatment subgroup, in-hospital mortality was 42% (95% CI 0.345-0.488%) for 180 (45%) CPAP failures requiring intubation, and 2% (95% CI 0.008-0.035%) for the remaining 217 (55%) patients who succeeded. Delaying intubation was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.093, 95% CI 1.010-1.184). CONCLUSIONS: We described a large population of COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP outside ICU. Intubation delay represents a risk factor for mortality. Further investigation is needed for early identification of CPAP failures.
ABSTRACT
The provocation test (PT) with the suspected drug represents the gold standard in the diagnosis of non-IgE hypersensitivity reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Nevertheless, there is no consensus regarding the clinical management of suspected NSAID-sensitive patients. This study assessed if a PT with the suspected drug is a reliable and safe proceeding to confirm NSAID hypersensitivity in patients with a clinical history of urticaria/angioedema (Urt/AE). It also analyzed different patient characteristics (such as gender, age, atopy, dermographism, time interval between the last drug reaction, and number of previous NSAID reactions) in relation to PT positivity. One hundred fifty-nine patients with Urt/AE apparently related to assumption of one or more NSAIDs underwent PT with the suspected drugs. Moreover, to distinguish single/multiple NSAID reactivity in patients who did not tolerate the offending NSAID, another strong cyclooxygenase-1 inhibitor PT was performed. PT was negative in 142/159 patients (89.31%), ruling out a diagnosis of NSAIDs hypersensitivity; 17/159 patients (10.69%) experienced a reaction of Urt/AE during the PT: 8 patients were diagnosed as single reactors to NSAIDs and 4 as multiple reactors to NSAIDs. Those with a history of multiple NSAID reactions and male patients were both more likely to have a positive PT. Our results suggest that in all patients with history of NSAID cutaneous reactions, the NSAID hypersensitivity should be confirmed by an oral PT and that the diagnostic proceeding can safely start with the offending NSAID.
