Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Respir Care. 2022 Sep;67(9):1091-1099. doi: 10.4187/respcare.09772. Epub 2022 Jun 28.
Given the known downstream implications of choice of respiratory support on patient outcomes, all factors influencing these decisions, even those not limited to the patient, warrant close consideration. We examined the effect of emergency department (ED)-specific system factors, such as work load and census, on the use of noninvasive versus invasive respiratory support.
We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study of all adult subjects with severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission from 5 EDs within a single urban health care system. Subject demographics, severity of illness, and the type of respiratory support used were obtained. Using continuous measures of ED census, boarding, and active management, we estimated ED work load for each subjects' ED stay. The subjects were categorized by type(s) of respiratory support used: low-flow oxygen, noninvasive respiratory support (eg, noninvasive ventilation [NIV] and/or high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]), invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation after trial of NIV/HFNC. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine system factors associated with the type of respiratory support used in the ED.
A total of 634 subjects were included. Of these, 431 (70.0%) were managed on low-flow oxygen alone, 108 (17.0%) on NIV/HFNC, 54 (8.5%) on invasive mechanical ventilation directly, and 41 (6.5%) on NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED. Higher severity of illness and underlying lung disease increased the odds of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 1.05 [95% CI 1.03-1.07] and odds ratio 3.47 [95% CI 1.37-8.78], respectively). Older age decreased odds of being on invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 0.96 [95% CI 0.94-0.99]). As ED work load increased, the odds for subjects to be managed initially with NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation increased 6-8-fold.
High ED work load was associated with higher odds on HFNC/NIV prior to invasive mechanical ventilation.
鉴于选择呼吸支持对患者结局的已知下游影响,所有影响这些决策的因素,甚至不限于患者的因素,都值得密切考虑。我们研究了急诊科(ED)特定系统因素对无创与有创呼吸支持的使用的影响,如工作量和住院患者人数。
我们对来自单一城市医疗系统 5 家 ED 的所有需要 ICU 入院的重症 COVID-19 成年患者进行了多中心回顾性队列研究。获取了患者的人口统计学、疾病严重程度和使用的呼吸支持类型。使用 ED 住院期间 ED 工作量的连续测量指标(住院患者人数、留观和积极管理),对每位患者的 ED 住院情况进行了分类。根据使用的呼吸支持类型(低流量吸氧、无创呼吸支持(如无创通气 [NIV] 和/或高流量鼻导管 [HFNC])、有创机械通气或 NIV/HFNC 尝试后进行有创机械通气)对患者进行分类。我们使用多变量逻辑回归来检查与 ED 中使用的呼吸支持类型相关的系统因素。
共纳入 634 例患者。其中,431 例(70.0%)单独接受低流量吸氧治疗,108 例(17.0%)接受 NIV/HFNC 治疗,54 例(8.5%)直接接受有创机械通气治疗,41 例(6.5%)在 ED 中先接受 NIV/HFNC 治疗后再接受有创机械通气治疗。疾病严重程度较高和基础肺部疾病增加了与低流量吸氧相比需要有创机械通气的几率(比值比 1.05[95%CI 1.03-1.07]和比值比 3.47[95%CI 1.37-8.78])。年龄较大与低流量吸氧相比,接受有创机械通气的几率降低(比值比 0.96[95%CI 0.94-0.99])。随着 ED 工作量的增加,在 ED 中先接受 NIV/HFNC 治疗然后再接受有创机械通气的患者几率增加了 6-8 倍。
高 ED 工作量与 HFNC/NIV 治疗前接受有创机械通气的几率增加有关。