Abstract
Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs).
Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support.
Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]).
Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality.
Trial registration: This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.
Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support.
Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]).
Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality.
Trial registration: This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 276 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Critical Care |
| Volume | 26 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 13 Sept 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding:This work was supported by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z] and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]; CIHR Coronavirus Rapid Research Funding Opportunity OV2170359; Grants from Rapid European COVID-19 Emergency Response research (RECOVER) [H2020 Project 101003589] and European Clinical Research Alliance on Infectious Diseases (ECRAID) [965313]; The Imperial NIHR Biomedical Research Centre; The Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre; and Endorsed by the Irish Critical Care-Clinical Trials Group, co-ordinated in Ireland by the Irish Critical Care-Clinical Trials Network at University College Dublin and funded by the Health Research Board of Ireland [CTN-2014-12]. This work uses Data/Materials provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support #DataSavesLives. The Data/materials used for this research were obtained from ISARIC4C. The COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) data was collated by ISARIC4C Investigators. Data and Material provision were supported by grants from: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR; award CO-CIN-01), the Medical Research Council (MRC; Grant MC_PC_19059), and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at the University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), (Award 200907), Wellcome Trust [Turtle, Lance-fellowship 205228/Z/16/Z], NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London with PHE (Award 200927), Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (Grant C18616/A25153), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London (Award IS-BRC-1215-20013), and NIHR Clinical Research Network providing infrastructure support. This work was possible due to the dedication and hard work of the Norwegian SARS-CoV-2 study team and supported by grants from Research Council of Norway Grant No. 312780 and a philanthropic donation from Vivaldi Invest A/S owned by Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner; The dedication and hard work of the Groote Schuur Hospital Covid ICU Team, and supported by the Groote Schuur nursing and University of Cape Town registrar bodies coordinated by the Division of Critical Care at the University of Cape Town; and supported by the COVID clinical management team, AIIMS, Rishikesh, India.
Keywords
- Invasive mechanical ventilation
- High flow nasal cannula
- COVID-19
- Critical care