Literature DB >> 34118977

Predictors of weaning from helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Dejan Radovanovic1, Stefano Pini1, Marina Saad1, Luca Perotto1, Fabio Giuliani1, Pierachille Santus2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34118977      PMCID: PMC8196263          DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03627-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care        ISSN: 1364-8535            Impact factor:   9.097


× No keyword cloud information.
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) offers a valid non-invasive respiratory support for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia [1]. CPAP treatment isn’t free from complications such as pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum, hemodynamic instability, or delirium and requires careful monitoring [1, 2]. Accordingly, timely CPAP removal appears desirable [1, 2]. Our aim was to identify weaning predictors and assess their performance in COVID-19 patients treated with helmet CPAP. A prospective, observational, cohort study was conducted in our high dependency respiratory unit including consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia that underwent a weaning trial from CPAP between March 2020 and February 2021 (training cohort). Patients’ readiness to undergo a weaning trial was judged by the treating physician. A weaning trial was the reduction in support to minimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP≈2 cmH2O, including antiviral filters) maintaining a FiO2 ≤ 60% [1, 2]. Absence of respiratory distress and SpO2 ≥ 94% in the subsequent 30 min lead to helmet removal and oxygen supplementation with FiO2 ≤ 60%. A weaning failure was the need to restore CPAP because of respiratory distress or SpO2 ≤ 94% in any moment beginning from the low PEEP trial and during the subsequent 12 h. Weaning predictors were assessed before reducing PEEP, and included: (1) ROX index (SpO2/FiO2/respiratory rate (RR)) [3], (2) modified ROX index (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) to FiO2 ratio/RR—mROX) [3], (3) alveolar-arterial (A-a) O2 gradient, (4) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score [4]. Sensitivity and specificity for different thresholds and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for all indexes. The index that best performed in the training cohort was tested in a validation cohort of patients hospitalized in two general wards of our institution. Statistical significance was a p value ≤ 0.05. Analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics V.23.0 (Armonk, NY). The study (NCT04307459) was approved by the local ethical committee (17263/2020) and all patients gave written informed consent. Seventy-four patients formed the training cohort: 61 (82.5%) succeeded and 13 (17.5%) failed the weaning trial (Table 1). At weaning trial, patients that failed had higher SOFA score, A-a O2 and RR, while PaO2/FiO2, ROX and mROX were higher in patients that succeeded weaning (Table 1). The mROX index had the best AUROC (0.830) and the value that best discriminated weaning success from failure was 8.4 mmHg/bpm (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.77) (Fig. 1). This threshold was tested in the validation cohort (44 patients; median age 65, 82% males) of which 32 (72.7%) succeeded and 12 (27.3%) failed weaning. The two cohorts were comparable in terms of clinical characteristics and CPAP duration before weaning. AUROC for mROX in the validation cohort was 0.828, sensitivity and positive predictive value 0.88, specificity and negative predictive value 0.67. Patients with mROX ≥ 8.4 after 5 days of CPAP had twice the probability to be free from CPAP compared with patients with mROX < 8.4 (Fig. 1).
Table 1

Clinical characteristics at admission and at weaning trial in patients that succeeded and failed CPAP weaning

CharacteristicsWeaning success (n = 61)Weaning failure (n = 13)p valuea
Age, years62 (12)74 (8)0.001
Males, n (%)43 (70)8 (61)0.526
Hypertension, n (%)30 (49)7 (54)0.760
Diabetes mellitus, n (%)13 (21)3 (23)0.999
Ischemic heart disease, n (%)6 (10)4 (31)0.067
Obesity, n (%)26 (43)6 (46)0.816
Respiratory disease, n (%)10 (16)0 (0)0.116
CPAP days at weaning trial4 (2–6)4 (2.5–5)0.854
In-Hospital treatments
Antibiotics, n (%)50 (82.0%)9 (69.2%)0.446
LMWH prophylactic, n (%)39 (63.9%)8 (61.5%)0.999
LMWH therapeutic, n (%)30 (49.2%)9 (69.2%)0.189
Systemic corticosteroids, n (%)46 (75.4%)9 (69.2%)0.729
Clinical status at admission
Lymphocytes, × 106/L900 (600–1400)800 (700–1000)0.931
D-Dimer, µg/L FEU888 (572–2101)1056 (544–1632)0.922
CRP, mg/L85 (42–127)110 (85–215)0.060
Creatinine, mg/dL0.8 (0.7–1.0)0.9 (0.8–1.6)0.091
BUN, mg/dL38 (28–53)52 (34–70)0.093
Glasgow coma scale15 (15–15)15 (14.5–15)0.067
SOFA2 (2–3)3 (2–4.5)0.204
Respiratory rate, bpm24 (22–29)26 (24–33)0.275
PaO2/FiO2, mmHg194 (122–273)140 (86.7–281.0)0.604
A-a O2 gradient, mmHg204 (69–325)242 (66–336)0.960
pH7.48 (0.05)7.49 (0.05)0.389
PaCO2, mmHg36 (7)35 (9)0.598
ROX index7.6 (4.8–14.5)8.1 (4.3–16.3)0.889
Clinical status the day of weaning trial
D-Dimer, µg/L FEU899 (545–1425)1244 (845–1375)0.183
CRP, mg/L36 (9–59)70 (18–115)0.085
SOFA2 (1.5 – 3)3 (3–4)0.003
GCS15 (15–15)15 (15–15)0.423
A-a O2 gradient, mmHg208 (151–269)245 (206–445)0.010
PaO2/FiO2, mmHg243 (98)171 (56)0.014
Respiratory rate, bpm20 (18–22)24 (22–27)< 0.001
pH7.45 (7.42–7.47)7.44 (7.42–7.48)0.638
PaCO2, mmHg42 (6)41 (6)0.653
ROX index9 (8–11)7.4 (4.1–8.5)0.002
mROX index, mmHg/bpm11.9 (8.5–14.3)6.6 (5.6–8.8)< 0.001

Parametric and nonparametric quantitative variables are described with means (standard deviations, SD) and medians (interquartile ranges, IQR), respectively. Chi-squared or Fisher exact test were used to compare qualitative variables, whereas Student t test or Mann–Whitney were used to compare quantitative variables with normal or non-normal distribution, respectively, in patients that failed or succeeded the weaning trial

A-a O2 gradient = alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient; BUN = blood urea nitrogen; CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure; CRP = C reactive protein (upper limit of normal 10 mg/L); FEU = fibrinogen equivalent units; GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale; LMWH = low molecular weight heparin; PaO2 = arterial partial pressure of oxygen; PaCO2 = arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide; ROX index = SpO2/FiO2/respiratory rate; mROX index = PaO2/FiO2/respiratory rate; SOFA = Sequential Organ Failure Assessment

Fig. 1

Accuracy and performance of predictors of weaning success from helmet CPAP. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with areas under the ROC curves showing the performance for each index in predicting weaning success (upper panel). Sensitivity and specificity for each weaning predictor is also reported. The left lower panel shows the performance of the mROX threshold of 8.4 mmHg/bpm in predicting weaning outcome in the validation cohort. The right lower panel illustrates the probability to remain on CPAP during the hospital stay in the pooled population (n = 118) in patients with a mROX index of ≥ or < 8.4. CPAP = continuous positive expiratory pressure

Clinical characteristics at admission and at weaning trial in patients that succeeded and failed CPAP weaning Parametric and nonparametric quantitative variables are described with means (standard deviations, SD) and medians (interquartile ranges, IQR), respectively. Chi-squared or Fisher exact test were used to compare qualitative variables, whereas Student t test or Mann–Whitney were used to compare quantitative variables with normal or non-normal distribution, respectively, in patients that failed or succeeded the weaning trial A-a O2 gradient = alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient; BUN = blood urea nitrogen; CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure; CRP = C reactive protein (upper limit of normal 10 mg/L); FEU = fibrinogen equivalent units; GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale; LMWH = low molecular weight heparin; PaO2 = arterial partial pressure of oxygen; PaCO2 = arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide; ROX index = SpO2/FiO2/respiratory rate; mROX index = PaO2/FiO2/respiratory rate; SOFA = Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Accuracy and performance of predictors of weaning success from helmet CPAP. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with areas under the ROC curves showing the performance for each index in predicting weaning success (upper panel). Sensitivity and specificity for each weaning predictor is also reported. The left lower panel shows the performance of the mROX threshold of 8.4 mmHg/bpm in predicting weaning outcome in the validation cohort. The right lower panel illustrates the probability to remain on CPAP during the hospital stay in the pooled population (n = 118) in patients with a mROX index of ≥ or < 8.4. CPAP = continuous positive expiratory pressure Our data demonstrated that the mROX index, combining non-invasive surrogates of respiratory distress (RR) and gas exchange efficiency (PaO2/FiO2), was the best predictor of weaning success from CPAP. We observed a relatively low rate of weaning failure, suggesting that weaning attempts tend to be performed late, and reflecting the need for objective and sensitive indicators of weaning preparedness, as for invasive mechanical ventilation [5]. Some limitations need further exploration. First, these thresholds should be tested in randomized clinical trials and compared with standard of care. Second, predictors should be sequentially measured at different time-points during zero-PEEP, to assess their performance variability during the weaning trial and unassisted breathing [2, 6]. In conclusion, the mROX threshold of 8.4 mmHg/bpm appears a sensitive and robust predictor of weaning success from helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19.
  6 in total

1.  Extubation and the myth of "minimal ventilator settings".

Authors:  Martin J Tobin
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  A comparison of four methods of weaning patients from mechanical ventilation. Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group.

Authors:  A Esteban; F Frutos; M J Tobin; I Alía; J F Solsona; I Valverdú; R Fernández; M A de la Cal; S Benito; R Tomás
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-02-09       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Prognostic Accuracy of the SOFA Score, SIRS Criteria, and qSOFA Score for In-Hospital Mortality Among Adults With Suspected Infection Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  Eamon P Raith; Andrew A Udy; Michael Bailey; Steven McGloughlin; Christopher MacIsaac; Rinaldo Bellomo; David V Pilcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Success or Failure of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy: The ROX Index Is Good, but a Modified ROX Index May Be Better.

Authors:  Habib M R Karim; Antonio M Esquinas
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 21.405

5.  Helmet CPAP treatment in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a multicentre cohort study.

Authors:  Stefano Aliberti; Dejan Radovanovic; Filippo Billi; Giovanni Sotgiu; Matteo Costanzo; Tommaso Pilocane; Laura Saderi; Andrea Gramegna; Angelo Rovellini; Luca Perotto; Valter Monzani; Pierachille Santus; Francesco Blasi
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 16.671

6.  Helmet CPAP to Treat Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Patients with COVID-19: A Management Strategy Proposal.

Authors:  Dejan Radovanovic; Maurizio Rizzi; Stefano Pini; Marina Saad; Davide Alberto Chiumello; Pierachille Santus
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 4.241

  6 in total
  2 in total

1.  Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Immunostimulation in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia.

Authors:  Pierachille Santus; Dejan Radovanovic; Micaela Garziano; Stefano Pini; Giuseppe Croce; Giuseppe Fuccia; Debora Spitaleri; Mara Biasin; Mario Clerici; Daria Trabattoni
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 2.  Management of COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Failure with Alternatives to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: High-Flow Oxygen, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Noninvasive Ventilation.

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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.