Jonathan Walker1, Shaman Dolly1, Liji Ng1, Melissa Prior-Ong1, Kalpana Sabapathy2. 1. Calderdale Royal Hospital, Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust, Halifax, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation may be used as a potential bridge to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or as a ceiling-of-care for persistent hypoxaemia despite standard oxygen therapy, according to UK guidelines. We examined the association of mode of respiratory support and ceiling-of-care on mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of routinely collected de-identified data of adults with nasal/throat SARs-CoV-2 swab-positive results, at the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust between 10th March-19th April 2020 (outcomes determined on 22nd May). FINDINGS: Of 347 patients with SARs-CoV-2 swab-positive results, 294 (84.7%) patients admitted for Covid-19 were included in the study. Sixty-nine patients were trialled on CPAP, mostly delivered by face mask, either as an early ceiling of care instituted within 24 hours of admission (N = 19), or as a potential bridge to IMV (N = 44). Patients receiving a ceiling of care more than 24 hours after admission (N = 6) were excluded from the analysis. Two hundred and fifteen patients (73.1%) maximally received air/standard oxygen therapy, and 45 (15.3%) patients maximally received CPAP. Thirty-four patients (11.6%) required IMV, of which 24 had received prior CPAP. There were 138 patients with an early ceiling-of-care plan (pre-admission/within 24h). Overall, 103(35.0%) patients died and 191(65.0%) were alive at study end. Among all patients trialled on CPAP either as a potential bridge to IMV (N = 44) or as a ceiling-of-care (N = 19) mortality was 25% and 84%, respectively. Overall, there was strong evidence for higher mortality among patients who required CPAP or IMV, compared to those who required only air/oxygen (aOR 5.24 95%CI: 1.38, 19.81 and aOR 46.47 95%CI: 7.52, 287.08, respectively; p<0.001), and among patients with early ceiling-of-care compared to those without a ceiling (aOR 41.81 95%CI: 8.28, 211.17; p<0.001). Among patients without a ceiling of care (N = 137), 10 patients required prompt intubation following failed oxygen therapy, but 44 patients received CPAP. CPAP failure, defined as death (N = 1) or intubation (N = 24), occurred in 57% (N = 25) of patients. But in total, 75% (N = 33) of those started on CPAP with no ceiling of care recovered to discharge-19 without the need for IMV, and 14 following IMV. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that among patients with no ceiling-of-care, an initial trial of CPAP as a potential bridge to IMV offers a favourable therapeutic alternative to early intubation. In contrast, among patients with a ceiling-of care, CPAP seems to offer little additional survival benefit beyond oxygen therapy alone. Information on ceilings of respiratory support is vital to interpreting mortality from Covid-19. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: Sample size relatively small.Study sample representative of hospitalised Covid-19 patients in UK.Previously unreported data on role of ceilings-of-care in hospitalised Covid-19 patients.Novel data on use of CPAP separated by indication.
BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation may be used as a potential bridge to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or as a ceiling-of-care for persistent hypoxaemia despite standard oxygen therapy, according to UK guidelines. We examined the association of mode of respiratory support and ceiling-of-care on mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of routinely collected de-identified data of adults with nasal/throat SARs-CoV-2 swab-positive results, at the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust between 10th March-19th April 2020 (outcomes determined on 22nd May). FINDINGS: Of 347 patients with SARs-CoV-2 swab-positive results, 294 (84.7%) patients admitted for Covid-19 were included in the study. Sixty-nine patients were trialled on CPAP, mostly delivered by face mask, either as an early ceiling of care instituted within 24 hours of admission (N = 19), or as a potential bridge to IMV (N = 44). Patients receiving a ceiling of care more than 24 hours after admission (N = 6) were excluded from the analysis. Two hundred and fifteen patients (73.1%) maximally received air/standard oxygen therapy, and 45 (15.3%) patients maximally received CPAP. Thirty-four patients (11.6%) required IMV, of which 24 had received prior CPAP. There were 138 patients with an early ceiling-of-care plan (pre-admission/within 24h). Overall, 103(35.0%) patientsdied and 191(65.0%) were alive at study end. Among all patients trialled on CPAP either as a potential bridge to IMV (N = 44) or as a ceiling-of-care (N = 19) mortality was 25% and 84%, respectively. Overall, there was strong evidence for higher mortality among patients who required CPAP or IMV, compared to those who required only air/oxygen (aOR 5.24 95%CI: 1.38, 19.81 and aOR 46.47 95%CI: 7.52, 287.08, respectively; p<0.001), and among patients with early ceiling-of-care compared to those without a ceiling (aOR 41.81 95%CI: 8.28, 211.17; p<0.001). Among patients without a ceiling of care (N = 137), 10 patients required prompt intubation following failed oxygen therapy, but 44 patients received CPAP. CPAP failure, defined as death (N = 1) or intubation (N = 24), occurred in 57% (N = 25) of patients. But in total, 75% (N = 33) of those started on CPAP with no ceiling of care recovered to discharge-19 without the need for IMV, and 14 following IMV. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that among patients with no ceiling-of-care, an initial trial of CPAP as a potential bridge to IMV offers a favourable therapeutic alternative to early intubation. In contrast, among patients with a ceiling-of care, CPAP seems to offer little additional survival benefit beyond oxygen therapy alone. Information on ceilings of respiratory support is vital to interpreting mortality from Covid-19. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: Sample size relatively small.Study sample representative of hospitalised Covid-19patients in UK.Previously unreported data on role of ceilings-of-care in hospitalised Covid-19patients.Novel data on use of CPAP separated by indication.
Authors: Bruno L Ferreyro; Federico Angriman; Laveena Munshi; Lorenzo Del Sorbo; Niall D Ferguson; Bram Rochwerg; Michelle J Ryu; Refik Saskin; Hannah Wunsch; Bruno R da Costa; Damon C Scales Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rebecca Nightingale; Nneka Nwosu; Farheen Kutubudin; Tom Fletcher; Joe Lewis; Frederick Frost; Kathryn Haigh; Ryan Robinson; Ayesha Kumar; Gareth Jones; Deborah Brown; Michael Abouyannis; Mike Beadsworth; Peter Hampshire; Stephen Aston; Manish Gautam; Hassan Burhan Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2020-07
Authors: Basem M Alraddadi; Ismael Qushmaq; Fahad M Al-Hameed; Yasser Mandourah; Ghaleb A Almekhlafi; Jesna Jose; Awad Al-Omari; Ayman Kharaba; Abdullah Almotairi; Kasim Al Khatib; Sarah Shalhoub; Ahmed Abdulmomen; Ahmed Mady; Othman Solaiman; Abdulsalam M Al-Aithan; Rajaa Al-Raddadi; Ahmed Ragab; Hanan H Balkhy; Abdulrahman Al Harthy; Musharaf Sadat; Haytham Tlayjeh; Laura Merson; Frederick G Hayden; Robert A Fowler; Yaseen M Arabi Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Annemarie B Docherty; Ewen M Harrison; Christopher A Green; Hayley E Hardwick; Riinu Pius; Lisa Norman; Karl A Holden; Jonathan M Read; Frank Dondelinger; Gail Carson; Laura Merson; James Lee; Daniel Plotkin; Louise Sigfrid; Sophie Halpin; Clare Jackson; Carrol Gamble; Peter W Horby; Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam; Antonia Ho; Clark D Russell; Jake Dunning; Peter Jm Openshaw; J Kenneth Baillie; Malcolm G Semple Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-05-22
Authors: Matthew J Cummings; Matthew R Baldwin; Darryl Abrams; Samuel D Jacobson; Benjamin J Meyer; Elizabeth M Balough; Justin G Aaron; Jan Claassen; LeRoy E Rabbani; Jonathan Hastie; Beth R Hochman; John Salazar-Schicchi; Natalie H Yip; Daniel Brodie; Max R O'Donnell Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas M T Cheung; Loretta Y C Yam; Loletta K Y So; Arthur C W Lau; Edwin Poon; Bernard M H Kong; Raymond W H Yung Journal: Chest Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Gareth Jones; Stephen Aston; Rebecca Nightingale; Joseph Lewis; Katelyn Rhiannon Monsell; Lewis Jones; Christopher Smith; Shantanu Kundu; Helena Bond; Hassan Burhan; Tom Fletcher; Thomas Blanchard; Michael Beadsworth; Peter Hampshire; Manish Gautam; Stacy Todd Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2021-09
Authors: Tainá Veras de Sandes-Freitas; Marina Pontello Cristelli; Lucio Roberto Requião-Moura; Luís Gustavo Modelli de Andrade; Laila Almeida Viana; Valter Duro Garcia; Claudia Maria Costa de Oliveira; Ronaldo de Matos Esmeraldo; Paula Roberta de Lima; Ida Maria Maximina Fernandes Charpiot; Teresa Cristina Alves Ferreira; Rodrigo Fontanive Franco; Kellen Micheline Alves Henrique Costa; Denise Rodrigues Simão; Gustavo Fernandes Ferreira; Viviane Brandão Bandeira de Mello Santana; Ricardo Augusto Monteiro de Barros Almeida; Luciane Monica Deboni; Anita Leme da Rocha Saldanha; Irene de Lourdes Noronha; Lívia Cláudio de Oliveira; Deise De Boni Monteiro de Carvalho; Reinaldo Barreto Oriá; Jose Osmar Medina-Pestana; Helio Tedesco-Silva Junior Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Andrea Vianello; Nello De Vita; Lorenza Scotti; Gabriella Guarnieri; Marco Confalonieri; Valeria Bonato; Beatrice Molena; Carlo Maestrone; Gianluca Airoldi; Carlo Olivieri; Pier Paolo Sainaghi; Federico Lionello; Giovanna Arcaro; Francesco Della Corte; Paolo Navalesi; Rosanna Vaschetto Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Barbara Bonnesen; Jens-Ulrik Stæhr Jensen; Klaus Nielsen Jeschke; Alexander G Mathioudakis; Alexandru Corlateanu; Ejvind Frausing Hansen; Ulla Møller Weinreich; Ole Hilberg; Pradeesh Sivapalan Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-12-02