Department of Pulmonology, General Hospital "Prim. dr. Abdulah Nakaš", Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Department of Pathophysiology, School of Medicine, Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Banja Luka, Banja Luka, the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Pharmacy Department, University Clinical Centre of the Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka, the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Acta Med Acad. 2022 Dec;51(3):199-208. doi: 10.5644/ama2006-124.389. Epub 2022 Dec 15.
To identify the type of the non-invasive ventilatory treatment for patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with respiratory status deteriorated by COVID-19 pneumonia, and in need of treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
This cross-sectional study was conducted over a one-year period in the medical intensive care units of two hospitals. As the patients' clinical condition deteriorated and the parameters of the arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis worsened, oxygen support was applied via a high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or by non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). According to the control values of the arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) and the parameters of ABG, the patients were enabled to be transferred between the two types of non-invasive ventilatory support. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay, while secondary outcomes were the rate of intubation, the mortality rate, and respiratory supportfree days.
Out of 21 critical patients with COPD and COVID-19, 11 (52.4%) were initially treated with NPPV and 10 (47.6%) with HFNC. The ages (67±9.79 in NPPV group vs. 70.10±10.25 in HFNC group) and severity of illness (SOFA score 5 (3.5) in NPPV group vs. 5 (2.8) in HFNC group) were similar between the two groups. Switching the mode of respiratory support was more common in NPPV (58.3% in survivor group vs. 41.7% in non-survivor group). Patients treated with NPPV compared to HFNC had a nominally longer length of stay (15 (11) vs. 11.5 (4.25)), and higher risk of intubation (66.7% vs. 33.3%) and mortality (66.7% vs. 33.3%), but the comparisons did not reach statistical significance. Survivors had significantly longer Medical Intensive Care Unit and hospital stays, but significantly lower FiO2 (0.60 vs.1) and higher values of PaO2/FiO2 (78(32.4) vs. 56.3(17.8)) than non-survivors. All patients were treated with corticosteroids, and the duration of treatment was similar between groups.
In critically ill patients with COPD and COVID-19, both HFNC and NPPV were commonly used as the initial mode of ventilation. Switching to a different mode and adverse patient outcomes were more frequent in patients initially treated with NPPV. Survivors had higher values of PaO2/FiO2 than non-survivors.
确定 COVID-19 肺炎导致慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者呼吸状况恶化并需要在重症监护病房(ICU)治疗时,对其进行非侵入性通气治疗的类型。
本横断面研究在两家医院的医疗重症监护病房进行了一年。随着患者临床状况恶化和动脉血气(ABG)分析参数恶化,通过高流量鼻导管(HFNC)或无创正压通气(NPPV)进行氧支持。根据动脉血氧饱和度(SaO2)的控制值和 ABG 参数,患者可以在两种类型的非侵入性通气支持之间进行转换。主要结局是住院时间,次要结局是插管率、死亡率和无呼吸支持天数。
21 例 COPD 和 COVID-19 重症患者中,11 例(52.4%)最初接受 NPPV 治疗,10 例(47.6%)接受 HFNC 治疗。两组年龄(NPPV 组 67±9.79 岁,HFNC 组 70.10±10.25 岁)和疾病严重程度(NPPV 组 SOFA 评分 5(3.5),HFNC 组 5(2.8))相似。在幸存者组中,切换呼吸支持模式更为常见(58.3%幸存者组 vs. 41.7%非幸存者组)。与 HFNC 相比,接受 NPPV 治疗的患者住院时间(15(11)vs. 11.5(4.25))更长,插管风险(66.7% vs. 33.3%)和死亡率(66.7% vs. 33.3%)更高,但比较无统计学意义。幸存者在 ICU 和医院的住院时间明显更长,但 FiO2(0.60 对 1)和 PaO2/FiO2 值(78(32.4)对 56.3(17.8))更高,而非幸存者的 FiO2(0.60 对 1)和 PaO2/FiO2 值(78(32.4)对 56.3(17.8))更低。所有患者均接受皮质类固醇治疗,两组治疗时间相似。
在 COVID-19 合并 COPD 的危重症患者中,HFNC 和 NPPV 均常作为初始通气模式。与最初接受 NPPV 治疗的患者相比,转换为不同模式和不良患者结局更为常见。与非幸存者相比,幸存者的 PaO2/FiO2 值更高。