Effect of a prioritization score on the inter-hospital transfer time management of severe COVID-19 patients: a quasi-experimental intervention study.

BACKGROUND: The overburdening of the healthcare system during the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic is driving the need to create new tools to improve the management of inter-hospital transport for patients with a severe COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyse the usefulness of the application of a prioritization score (IHTCOVID-19) for inter-hospital transfer of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: The study has a quasi-experimental design and was conducted on the Medical Emergency System, the pre-hospital emergency department of the public company belonging to the Autonomous Government of Catalonia that manages urgent healthcare in the region. Patients with a severe COVID-19 infection requiring inter-hospital transport were consecutively included. The pre-intervention period was from 1 to 31 March 2020, and the intervention period with the IHTCOVID-19 score was from 1 to 30 April 2020 (from 8 am to 8 pm). The prioritization score comprises four priority categories, with Priority 0 being the highest and Priority 3 being the lowest. Inter-hospital transfer (IHT) management times (alert-assignment time, resource management time and total central management time) and their variability were evaluated according to whether or not the IHTCOVID-19 score was applied. RESULTS: A total of 344 IHTs were included: 189 (54.9%) in the pre-intervention period and 155 (45.1%) in the post-intervention period. The majority of patients were male and the most frequent age range was between 50 and 70 years. According to the IHTCOVID-19 score, 12 (3.5%) transfers were classified as Priority 0, 66 (19.4%) as Priority 1, 247 (71.8%) as Priority 2 and 19 (5.6%) as Priority 3. Overall, with the application of the IHTCOVID-19 score, there was a significant reduction in total central management time [from 112.4 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 281.3) to 89.8 min (IQR 154.9); P = 0.012]. This significant reduction was observed in Priority 0 patients [286.2 (IQR 218.5) to 42.0 min (IQR 58); P = 0.018] and Priority 1 patients [130.3 (IQR 297.3) to 75.4 min (IQR 91.1); P = 0.034]. After applying the IHTCOVID-19 score, the average time of the process decreased by 22.6 min, and variability was reduced from 618.1 to 324.0 min. CONCLUSION: The application of the IHTCOVID-19 score in patients with a severe COVID-19 infection reduces IHT management times and variability.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: In patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema noninvasive ventilation may reduce intubation rate, but the impact on mortality and the superiority of one technique over another have not been clearly established. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the short-term effect of noninvasive ventilation on major clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to October 2005) and Cochrane databases (library issue 4, 2005) were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published from January 1, 1988, to October 31, 2005. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Included trials were all parallel studies comparing noninvasive ventilation to conventional oxygen therapy in patients with acute pulmonary edema. Comparisons of different techniques, either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV), were also included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen trials were selected. Overall, noninvasive ventilation significantly reduced the mortality rate by nearly 45% compared with conventional therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.78; P = .72 for heterogeneity). The results were significant for CPAP (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P = .44 for heterogeneity) but not for NIPSV (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.05; P = .76 for heterogeneity), although there were fewer studies in the latter. Both modalities showed a significant decrease in the "need to intubate" rate compared with conventional therapy: CPAP (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.58; P = .21 for heterogeneity), NIPSV (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; P = .24 for heterogeneity), and together (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P = .20 for heterogeneity). There were no differences in intubation or mortality rates in the analysis of studies comparing the 2 techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive ventilation reduces the need for intubation and mortality in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Although the level of evidence is higher for CPAP, there are no significant differences in clinical outcomes when comparing CPAP vs NIPSV.