Article (Scientific journals)
Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals
COVID-ICU group, for the REVA network, COVID-ICU investigators; KISOKA, Grâce; GREGOIRE, Céline et al.
2021In Critical Care, 25 (1), p. 421
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
 

Files


Full Text
s13054-021-03784-2 (1).pdf
Publisher postprint (1.17 MB)
Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to



Details



Keywords :
Acute respiratory distress syndrome; Acute respiratory failure; COVID-19; High-flow nasal cannula; Intubation; Mechanical ventilation; Mortality; Outcome; Hospitals; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine; Noninvasive Ventilation; COVID-19/therapy
Abstract :
[en] Rational: To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results: From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P < 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78-3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79-4.21, P < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed.
Disciplines :
Immunology & infectious disease
Anesthesia & intensive care
Author, co-author :
COVID-ICU group, for the REVA network, COVID-ICU investigators
KISOKA, Grâce ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Autres Services Médicaux > Service des soins intensifs
GREGOIRE, Céline  ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Département de médecine interne > Service d'hématologie clinique
LAMBERMONT, Bernard  ;  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Autres Services Médicaux > Service des soins intensifs
Language :
English
Title :
Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals
Publication date :
08 December 2021
Journal title :
Critical Care
ISSN :
1364-8535
eISSN :
1466-609X
Publisher :
BioMed Central, London, United Kingdom
Volume :
25
Issue :
1
Pages :
421
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Funding text :
This study was funded by the Fondation APHP and its donators though the program “Alliance Tous Unis Contre le Virus,” the Direction de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement, and the French Ministry of Health. The Reseau European de recherche en Ventilation Artificielle (REVA) network received a 75,000 € research grant from Air Liquide Healthcare. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.MS reported personal fees from Getinge, Drager, and Xenios, outside the submitted work. AD reports personal fees from Medtronic, grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Philips, personal fees from Baxter, personal fees from Hamilton, personal fees and non-financial support from Fisher & Paykel, grants from French Ministry of Health, personal fees from Getinge, grants and personal fees from Respinor, grants and non-financial support from Lungpacer, outside the submitted work. AM reported personal fees from Faron Pharmaceuticals, Air Liquid Medical Systems, Pfizer, Resmed and Draeger and grants and personal fees from Fisher and Paykel and Covidien, outside this work. MD reported personal fees from Lungpacer. AK reported personal fees from Aspen, Aguettant, and MSD. CG reported receiving grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and grants and nonfinancial support from ResMed outside the submitted work. JRD reported receiving travel and accommodation expenses from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Available on ORBi :
since 12 March 2022

Statistics


Number of views
101 (9 by ULiège)
Number of downloads
45 (3 by ULiège)

Scopus citations®
 
30
Scopus citations®
without self-citations
19
OpenCitations
 
9

Bibliography


Similar publications



Contact ORBi