ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to develop prognostic models for predicting the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 and compare their performance with the Respiratory rate-OXygenation (ROX) index. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected between March 2020 and August 2021 at three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ICU patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were screened. The exclusion criteria were patients who received IMV within the first 24 h of ICU admission, pregnancy, clinical decision for minimal end-of-life care and missing primary outcome data. Clinical and laboratory variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to select predictor variables. Models were based on the lowest Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and lowest AIC with significant p values. Assessment of predictive performance was done for discrimination and calibration. Areas under the curves (AUC)s were compared using DeLong's algorithm. Models were validated externally using an international database. RESULTS: Of 656 patients screened, 346 patients were included; 155 required IMV (44.8%), 191 did not (55.2%), and 207 patients were male (59.8%). According to the lowest AIC, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), temperature, respiratory effort signals, and leukocytes were identified as predictors of IMV at hospital admission. According to AIC with significant p values, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals were the best predictors of IMV; odds ratios (95% confidence interval): 1.46 (1.07-2.05), 0.81 (0.72-0.90), 9.13 (3.29-28.67), respectively. The ROX index at admission was lower in the IMV group than in the non-IMV group (7.3 [5.2-9.8] versus 9.6 [6.8-12.9], p < 0.001, respectively). In the external validation population, the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROX index was 0.683 (accuracy 63%), the AIC model showed an AUC of 0.703 (accuracy 69%), and the lowest AIC model with significant p values had an AUC of 0.725 (accuracy 79%). CONCLUSIONS: In the development population of ICU patients with COVID-19, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals predicted the need for IMV better than the ROX index. In the external validation population, although the AUCs did not differ significantly, the accuracy was higher when using SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals compared to the ROX index. This suggests that these variables may be more useful in predicting the need for IMV in ICU patients with COVID-19. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT05663528.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive respiratory support (conventional oxygen therapy [COT], non-invasive ventilation [NIV], high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO], and NIV alternated with HFNO [NIV + HFNO] may reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with COVID-19. The outcome of patients treated non-invasively depends on clinical severity at admission. We assessed the need for IMV according to NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO in patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity and evaluated in-hospital survival rates and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay. METHODS: This cohort study was conducted using data collected between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were included. Patients hospitalized for < 3 days, receiving therapy (COT, NIV, HFNO, or NIV + HFNO) for < 48 h, pregnant, and with no primary outcome data were excluded. The COT group was used as reference for multivariate Cox regression model adjustment. RESULTS: Of 1371 patients screened, 958 were eligible: 692 (72.2%) on COT, 92 (9.6%) on NIV, 31 (3.2%) on HFNO, and 143 (14.9%) on NIV + HFNO. The results for the patients in each group were as follows: median age (interquartile range): NIV (64 [49-79] years), HFNO (62 [55-70] years), NIV + HFNO (62 [48-72] years) (p = 0.615); heart failure: NIV (54.5%), HFNO (36.3%), NIV + HFNO (9%) (p = 0.003); diabetes mellitus: HFNO (17.6%), NIV + HFNO (44.7%) (p = 0.048). > 50% lung damage on chest computed tomography (CT): NIV (13.3%), HFNO (15%), NIV + HFNO (71.6%) (p = 0.038); SpO2/FiO2: NIV (271 [118-365] mmHg), HFNO (317 [254-420] mmHg), NIV + HFNO (229 [102-317] mmHg) (p = 0.001); rate of IMV: NIV (26.1%, p = 0.002), HFNO (22.6%, p = 0.023), NIV + HFNO (46.8%); survival rate: HFNO (83.9%), NIV + HFNO (63.6%) (p = 0.027); ICU length of stay: NIV (8.5 [5-14] days), NIV + HFNO (15 [10-25] days (p < 0.001); hospital length of stay: NIV (13 [10-21] days), NIV + HFNO (20 [15-30] days) (p < 0.001). After adjusting for comorbidities, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2, the risk of IMV in patients on NIV + HFNO remained high (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19, NIV alternating with HFNO was associated with a higher rate of IMV independent of the presence of comorbidities, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05579080.