Potalivo Antonella, Montomoli Jonathan, Facondini Francesca, Sanson Gianfranco, Lazzari Agli Luigi Arcangelo, Perin Tiziana, Cristini Francesco, Cavagna Enrico, De Giovanni Raffaella, Biagetti Carlo, Panzini Ilaria, Ravaioli Cinzia, Bitondo Maria Maddalena, Guerra Daniela, Giuliani Giovanni, Mosconi Elena, Guarino Sonia, Marchionni Elisa, Gangitano Gianfilippo, Valentini Ilaria, Giampaolo Luca, Muratore Francesco, Nardi Giuseppe
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Infermi Hospital, AUSL della Romagna, Rimini, Italy.
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Dec 30;12:1421-1431. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S278709. eCollection 2020.
Although the decision of which ventilation strategy to adopt in COVID-19 patients is crucial, yet the most appropriate means of carrying out this undertaking is not supported by strong evidence. We therefore described the organization of a province-level healthcare system during the occurrence of the COVID-19 epidemic and the 60-day outcomes of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients according to the respiratory strategy adopted given the limited available resources.
All COVID-19 patients (26/02/2020-18/04/2020) in the Rimini Province of Italy were included in this population-based cohort study. The hospitalized patients were classified according to the maximum level of respiratory support: oxygen supplementation (Oxygen group), non-invasive ventilation (NIV-only group), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV-only group), and IMV after an NIV trial (IMV-after-NIV group). Sixty-day mortality risk was estimated with a Cox proportional hazard analysis adjusted by age, sex, and administration of steroids, canakinumab, and tocilizumab.
We identified a total of 1,424 symptomatic patients: 520 (36.5%) were hospitalized, while 904 (63.5%) were treated at home with no 60-day deaths. Based on the respiratory support, 408 (78.5%) were assigned to the Oxygen group, 46 (8.8%) to the NIV-only group, 25 (4.8%) to the IMV-after-NIV group, and 41 (7.9%) to the IMV-only group. There was no significant difference in the PaO/FiO at IMV inception in the IMV-after-NIV and IMV-only groups (p=0.9). Overall 60-day mortality was 24.2% (Oxygen: 23.0%; NIV-only: 19.6%; IMV-after-NIV: 32.0%; IMV-only: 36.6%; p=0.165). Compared with the Oxygen group, the adjusted 60-day mortality risk significantly increased in the IMV-after-NIV (HR 2.776; p=0.024) and IMV-only groups (HR 2.966; p=0.001).
This study provided a population-based estimate of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in a severely affected Italian province. A similar 60-day mortality risk was found for patients undergoing immediate IMV and those intubated after an NIV trial with favorable outcomes after prolonged IMV.
尽管决定在新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)患者中采用哪种通气策略至关重要,但开展这项工作的最合适方法尚无有力证据支持。因此,鉴于可用资源有限,我们描述了COVID-19疫情期间省级医疗系统的组织情况,以及根据所采用的呼吸策略对住院COVID-19患者的60天结局。
意大利里米尼省所有COVID-19患者(2020年2月26日至2020年4月18日)纳入了这项基于人群的队列研究。住院患者根据呼吸支持的最高水平进行分类:补充氧气(氧气组)、无创通气(仅无创通气组)、有创机械通气(仅有创机械通气组)以及无创通气试验后进行有创机械通气(无创通气后有创机械通气组)。采用Cox比例风险分析估计60天死亡风险,并根据年龄、性别以及是否使用类固醇、卡那单抗和托珠单抗进行校正。
我们共识别出1424例有症状患者:520例(36.5%)住院,904例(63.5%)居家治疗,无60天死亡病例。根据呼吸支持情况,408例(78.5%)被分配至氧气组,46例(8.8%)至仅无创通气组,25例(4.8%)至无创通气后有创机械通气组,41例(7.9%)至仅有创机械通气组。无创通气后有创机械通气组和仅有创机械通气组在开始有创机械通气时的氧合指数(PaO₂/FiO₂)无显著差异(p = 0.9)。总体60天死亡率为24.2%(氧气组:23.0%;仅无创通气组:19.6%;无创通气后有创机械通气组:32.0%;仅有创机械通气组:三十六点六;p = 0.165)。与氧气组相比,无创通气后有创机械通气组(风险比[HR] 2.776;p = 0.024)和仅有创机械通气组(HR 2.966;p = 0.001)校正后的60天死亡风险显著增加。
本研究提供了意大利一个受严重影响省份基于人群的COVID-19疫情影响估计。对于立即进行有创机械通气的患者以及在无创通气试验后插管并在长时间有创机械通气后预后良好的患者,发现了相似的60天死亡风险。