Suppr超能文献

经鼻高流量湿化氧疗与无创通气在新型冠状病毒肺炎患者中的应用比较

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation versus endotracheal intubation in treatment of COVID-19 patients requiring ventilatory support.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY, USA.

SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY, USA.

出版信息

Am J Emerg Med. 2021 May;43:103-108. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.01.068. Epub 2021 Jan 29.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Initial guidelines recommended prompt endotracheal intubation rather than non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for COVID-19 patients requiring ventilator support. There is insufficient data comparing the impact of intubation versus NIV on patient-centered outcomes of these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare all-cause 30-day mortality for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure who underwent intubation first, intubation after NIV, or NIV only.

DESIGN

Retrospective study of patients admitted in March and April of 2020.

SETTING

A teaching hospital in Brooklyn, New York City.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult COVID-19 confirmed patients who required ventilator support (non-invasive ventilation and/or endotracheal intubation) at discretion of treating physician, were included.

EXPOSURES

Patients were categorized into three exposure groups: intubation-first, intubation after NIV, or NIV-only.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

30-day all-cause mortality, a predetermined outcome measured by multivariable logistic regression. Data are presented with medians and interquartile ranges, or percentages with 95% confidence intervals, for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Covariates for the model were age, sex, qSOFA score ≥ 2, presenting oxygen saturation, vasopressor use, and greater than three comorbidities. A secondary multivariable model compared mortality of all patients that received NIV (intubation after NIV and NIV-only) with the intubation-first group.

RESULTS

A total of 222 were enrolled. Overall mortality was 77.5% (95%CI, 72-83%). Mortality for intubation-first group was 82% (95%CI, 73-89%; 75/91), for Intubation after NIV was 84% (95%CI, 70-92%; 37/44), and for NIV-only was 69% (95%CI, 59-78%; 60/87). In multivariable analysis, NIV-only was associated with decreased all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.30, 95%CI, 0.13-0.69). No difference in mortality was observed between intubation-first and intubation after NIV. Secondary analysis found all patients who received NIV to have lower mortality than patients who were intubated only (OR: 0.44, 95%CI, 0.21-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS & RELEVANCE: Utilization of NIV as the initial intervention in COVID-19 patients requiring ventilatory support is associated with significant survival benefit. For patients intubated after NIV, the mortality rate is not worse than those who undergo intubation as their initial intervention.

摘要

重要性

最初的指南建议,对于需要呼吸机支持的 COVID-19 患者,应立即进行气管插管,而不是无创通气(NIV)。关于插管与 NIV 对这些患者以患者为中心的结局的影响,目前还缺乏足够的数据。

目的

比较先进行插管、先进行 NIV 后插管和仅进行 NIV 的因呼吸衰竭而住院的 COVID-19 患者的 30 天全因死亡率。

设计

2020 年 3 月和 4 月的回顾性研究。

地点

纽约市布鲁克林的一家教学医院。

参与者

纳入了接受医生酌情给予呼吸机支持(无创通气和/或气管插管)的成人 COVID-19 确诊患者。

暴露

患者分为三组暴露组:插管第一组、插管后 NIV 组或仅 NIV 组。

主要结局

30 天全因死亡率,这是通过多变量逻辑回归测量的预定结局。数据以中位数和四分位距表示,或分别以连续和分类变量的百分比和 95%置信区间表示。模型的协变量为年龄、性别、qSOFA 评分≥2、初始血氧饱和度、血管加压药使用和大于三种合并症。二次多变量模型比较了所有接受 NIV(插管后 NIV 和仅 NIV)的患者的死亡率与插管第一组的死亡率。

结果

共纳入 222 例患者。总体死亡率为 77.5%(95%CI,72-83%)。插管第一组的死亡率为 82%(95%CI,73-89%;75/91),插管后 NIV 组为 84%(95%CI,70-92%;37/44),仅 NIV 组为 69%(95%CI,59-78%;60/87)。多变量分析显示,仅 NIV 与全因死亡率降低相关(比值比[OR]:0.30,95%CI,0.13-0.69)。插管第一组与插管后 NIV 组的死亡率无差异。二次分析发现,所有接受 NIV 的患者的死亡率均低于仅接受插管的患者(OR:0.44,95%CI,0.21-0.95)。

结论和相关性

在需要通气支持的 COVID-19 患者中,将 NIV 作为初始干预措施与显著的生存获益相关。对于接受 NIV 后插管的患者,死亡率并不比作为初始干预措施的插管患者更差。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2fe8/7844386/74190a8c0943/gr1_lrg.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验