Uptake of Clinical Prognostic Tools in COPD Exacerbations Requiring Hospitalisation.

Clinical prognostic tools are used to objectively predict outcomes in many fields of medicine. Whilst over 400 have been developed for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), only a minority have undergone full external validation and just one, the DECAF score, has undergone an implementation study supporting use in clinical practice. Little is known about how such tools are used in the UK. We distributed surveys at two time points, in 2017 and 2019, to hospitals included in the Royal College of Physicians of London national COPD secondary care audit program. The survey assessed the use of prognostic tools in routine care of hospitalized COPD patients. Hospital response rates were 71/196 in 2017 and 72/196 in 2019. The use of the DECAF and PEARL scores more than doubled in decisions about unsupported discharge (7%-15.3%), admission avoidance (8.1%-17%) and readmission avoidance (4.8%-13.1%); it more than tripled (8.8%-27.8%) in decisions around hospital-at-home or early supported discharge schemes. In other areas, routine use of clinical prognostic tools was uncommon. In palliative care decisions, the use of the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance fell (5.6%-1.4%). In 2017, 43.7% of hospitals used at least one clinical prognostic tool in routine COPD care, increasing to 52.1% in 2019. Such tools can help challenge prognostic pessimism and improve care. To integrate these further into routine clinical care, future research should explore current barriers to their use and focus on implementation studies.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2021.1959540.

The Noninvasive Ventilation Outcomes (NIVO) score: prediction of in-hospital mortality in exacerbations of COPD requiring assisted ventilation.

INTRODUCTION: Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) complicated by acute (acidaemic) hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) requiring ventilation are common. When applied appropriately, ventilation substantially reduces mortality. Despite this, there is evidence of poor practice and prognostic pessimism. A clinical prediction tool could improve decision making regarding ventilation, but none is routinely used. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted with AECOPD and AHRF treated with assisted ventilation (principally noninvasive ventilation) were identified in two hospitals serving differing populations. Known and potential prognostic indices were identified a priori. A prediction tool for in-hospital death was derived using multivariable regression analysis. Prospective, external validation was performed in a temporally separate, geographically diverse 10-centre study. The trial methodology adhered to TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) recommendations. RESULTS: Derivation cohort: n=489, in-hospital mortality 25.4%; validation cohort: n=733, in-hospital mortality 20.1%. Using six simple categorised variables (extended Medical Research Council Dyspnoea score 1-4/5a/5b, time from admission to acidaemia >12 h, pH <7.25, presence of atrial fibrillation, Glasgow coma scale ≤14 and chest radiograph consolidation), a simple scoring system with strong prediction of in-hospital mortality is achieved. The resultant Noninvasive Ventilation Outcomes (NIVO) score had area under the receiver operating curve of 0.79 and offers good calibration and discrimination across stratified risk groups in its validation cohort. DISCUSSION: The NIVO score outperformed pre-specified comparator scores. It is validated in a generalisable cohort and works despite the heterogeneity inherent to both this patient group and this intervention. Potential applications include informing discussions with patients and their families, aiding treatment escalation decisions, challenging pessimism and comparing risk-adjusted outcomes across centres.

COVID-19 and pneumothorax: a multicentre retrospective case series.

INTRODUCTION: Pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum have both been noted to complicate cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospital admission. We report the largest case series yet described of patients with both these pathologies (including nonventilated patients). METHODS: Cases were collected retrospectively from UK hospitals with inclusion criteria limited to a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the presence of either pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum. Patients included in the study presented between March and June 2020. Details obtained from the medical record included demographics, radiology, laboratory investigations, clinical management and survival. RESULTS: 71 patients from 16 centres were included in the study, of whom 60 had pneumothoraces (six with pneumomediastinum in addition) and 11 had pneumomediastinum alone. Two of these patients had two distinct episodes of pneumothorax, occurring bilaterally in sequential fashion, bringing the total number of pneumothoraces included to 62. Clinical scenarios included patients who had presented to hospital with pneumothorax, patients who had developed pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum during their inpatient admission with COVID-19 and patients who developed their complication while intubated and ventilated, either with or without concurrent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Survival at 28 days was not significantly different following pneumothorax (63.1±6.5%) or isolated pneumomediastinum (53.0±18.7%; p=0.854). The incidence of pneumothorax was higher in males. 28-day survival was not different between the sexes (males 62.5±7.7% versus females 68.4±10.7%; p=0.619). Patients aged ≥70 years had a significantly lower 28-day survival than younger individuals (≥70 years 41.7±13.5% survival versus <70 years 70.9±6.8% survival; p=0.018 log-rank). CONCLUSION: These cases suggest that pneumothorax is a complication of COVID-19. Pneumothorax does not seem to be an independent marker of poor prognosis and we encourage continuation of active treatment where clinically possible.

Improved survival following ward-based non-invasive pressure support for severe hypoxia in a cohort of frail patients with COVID-19: retrospective analysis from a UK teaching hospital.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in China in December 2019, a pandemic has rapidly developed on a scale that has overwhelmed health services in a number of countries. COVID-19 has the potential to lead to severe hypoxia; this is usually the cause of death if it occurs. In a substantial number of patients, adequate arterial oxygenation cannot be achieved with supplementary oxygen therapy alone. To date, there has been no clear guideline endorsement of ward-based non-invasive pressure support (NIPS) for severely hypoxic patients who are deemed unlikely to benefit from invasive ventilation. We established a ward-based NIPS service for COVID-19 PCR-positive patients, with severe hypoxia, and in whom escalation to critical care for invasive ventilation was not deemed appropriate. A retrospective analysis of survival in these patients was undertaken. Twenty-eight patients were included. Ward-based NIPS for severe hypoxia was associated with a 50% survival in this cohort. This compares favourably with Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre survival data following invasive ventilation in a less frail, less comorbid and younger population. These results suggest that ward-based NIPS should be considered as a treatment option in an integrated escalation strategy in all units managing respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19.

Effect of portable non-invasive ventilation on exercise tolerance in COPD: One size does not fit all.

In a cross-over RCT, portable NIV (pNIV) reduced dynamic hyperinflation (DH) compared to pursed lip breathing (PLB) during recovery from intermittent exercise in COPD, but not consistently in all subjects. In this post-hoc analysis, DH response was defined as a reduction ≥4.5 % of predicted resting inspiratory capacity with pNIV compared to PLB. At exercise iso-time (where work completed was consistent between pNIV and PLB), 8/24 patients were DH non-responders (DH: 240 ± 40 mL, p = 0.001 greater using pNIV). 16/24 were DH responders (DH: 220 ± 50 mL, p = 0.001 lower using pNIV). Compared to DH responders, DH non-responders exhibited greater resting DH (RV/TLC: 65 ± 4% versus 56 ± 2%; p = 0.028) and did not improve exercise tolerance (pNIV: 30.9 ± 3.4 versus PLB: 29.9 ± 3.3 min; p = 0.603). DH responders increased exercise tolerance (pNIV: 34.9 ± 2.4 versus PLB: 27.1 ± 2.3 min; p = 0.001). Resting RV/TLC% was negatively associated with the magnitude of DH when using pNIV compared to PLB (r=-0.42; p = 0.043). Patients with profound DH were less likely to improve exercise tolerance with pNIV. Further studies using auto-adjusted ventilators are warranted.

Intermittent Use of Portable NIV Increases Exercise Tolerance in COPD: A Randomised, Cross-Over Trial.

During exercise, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) prolongs endurance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but routine use is impractical. The VitaBreath device provides portable NIV (pNIV); however, it can only be used during recovery. We assessed the effect of pNIV compared to pursed lip breathing (PLB) on exercise tolerance. Twenty-four COPD patients were randomised to a high-intensity (HI: 2-min at 80% peak work rate (WRpeak) alternated with 2-min recovery; n = 13), or a moderate-intensity (MOD: 6-min at 60% WRpeak alternated with 2-min recovery; n = 11) protocol, and within these groups two tests were performed using pNIV and PLB during recovery in balanced order. Upon completion, patients were provided with pNIV; use over 12 weeks was assessed. Compared to PLB, pNIV increased exercise tolerance (HI: by 5.2 ± 6.0 min; MOD: by 5.8 ± 6.7 min) (p < 0.05). With pNIV, mean inspiratory capacity increased and breathlessness decreased by clinically meaningful margins during recovery compared to the end of exercise (HI: by 140 ± 110 mL and 1.2 ± 1.7; MOD: by 170 ± 80 mL and 1.0 ± 0.7). At 12 weeks, patients reported that pNIV reduced anxiety (median: 7.5/10 versus 4/10, p = 0.001) and recovery time from breathlessness (17/24 patients; p = 0.002); 23/24 used the device at least weekly. pNIV increased exercise tolerance by reducing dynamic hyperinflation and breathlessness in COPD patients.

Using Smartphones to Collect Behavioral Data in Psychological Science: Opportunities, Practical Considerations, and Challenges.

Smartphones now offer the promise of collecting behavioral data unobtrusively, in situ, as it unfolds in the course of daily life. Data can be collected from the onboard sensors and other phone logs embedded in today's off-the-shelf smartphone devices. These data permit fine-grained, continuous collection of people's social interactions (e.g., speaking rates in conversation, size of social groups, calls, and text messages), daily activities (e.g., physical activity and sleep), and mobility patterns (e.g., frequency and duration of time spent at various locations). In this article, we have drawn on the lessons from the first wave of smartphone-sensing research to highlight areas of opportunity for psychological research, present practical considerations for designing smartphone studies, and discuss the ongoing methodological and ethical challenges associated with research in this domain. It is our hope that these practical guidelines will facilitate the use of smartphones as a behavioral observation tool in psychological science.