Association Between Early Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Day-60 Mortality in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Related to Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pneumonia

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Objectives: About 5% of patients with coronavirus disease-2019 are admitted to the ICU for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Opinions differ on whether invasive mechanical ventilation should be used as first-line therapy over noninvasive oxygen support. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of early invasive mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease-2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure on day-60 mortality. Design: Multicenter prospective French observational study. Setting: Eleven ICUs of the French OutcomeRea network. Patients: Coronavirus disease-2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), without shock or neurologic failure on ICU admission, and not referred from another ICU or intermediate care unit were included. Intervention: We compared day-60 mortality in patients who were on invasive mechanical ventilation within the first 2 calendar days of the ICU stay (early invasive mechanical ventilation group) and those who were not (nonearly invasive mechanical ventilation group). We used a Cox proportional-hazard model weighted by inverse probability of early invasive mechanical ventilation to determine the risk of death at day 60. Measurement and Main Results: The 245 patients included had a median (interquartile range) age of 61 years (52–69 yr), a Simplified Acute Physiology Score II score of 34 mm Hg (26–44 mm Hg), and a Pao2/Fio2 of 121 mm Hg (90–174 mm Hg). The rates of ICU-acquired pneumonia, bacteremia, and the ICU length of stay were significantly higher in the early (n = 117 [48%]) than in the nonearly invasive mechanical ventilation group (n = 128 [52%]), p < 0.01. Day-60 mortality was 42.7% and 21.9% in the early and nonearly invasive mechanical ventilation groups, respectively. The weighted model showed that early invasive mechanical ventilation increased the risk for day-60 mortality (weighted hazard ratio =1.74; 95% CI, 1.07–2.83, p=0.03). Conclusions: In ICU patients admitted with coronavirus disease-2019-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, early invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with an increased risk of day-60 mortality. This result needs to be confirmed.

[1]  Y. Yeh,et al.  COVID-19 ICU and mechanical ventilation patient characteristics and outcomes—A systematic review and meta-analysis , 2020, medRxiv.

[2]  David J Murphy,et al.  Timing of Intubation and Mortality Among Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Single-Center Cohort Study , 2020, Critical care medicine.

[3]  R. Attou,et al.  Compared to NIPPV, HFNC is more dangerous regarding aerosol dispersion and contamination of healthcare personnel: we are not sure , 2020, Critical Care.

[4]  R. Gazmuri,et al.  Development of a work of breathing scale and monitoring need of intubation in COVID-19 pneumonia , 2020, Critical Care.

[5]  M. Antonelli,et al.  Risk Factors Associated With Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19 in Intensive Care Units in Lombardy, Italy. , 2020, JAMA internal medicine.

[6]  D. Longrois,et al.  Prediction of outcome of nasal high flow use during COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure , 2020, Intensive Care Medicine.

[7]  P. Lepper,et al.  Position Paper for the State-of-the-Art Application of Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19 , 2020, Respiration.

[8]  G. Guyatt,et al.  High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission , 2020, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie.

[9]  M. Tobin,et al.  Caution about early intubation and mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 , 2020, Annals of Intensive Care.

[10]  H. Wunsch,et al.  Association of Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies With All-Cause Mortality in Adults With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, JAMA.

[11]  E. Akl,et al.  Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19 , 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  H. Wunsch.  Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19: Interpreting the Current Epidemiology , 2020, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[13]  Yingzi Huang,et al.  Clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with novel coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) in China: a retrospective multicenter study , 2020, Intensive Care Medicine.

[14]  J. Marini,et al.  Management of COVID-19 Respiratory Distress. , 2020, JAMA.

[15]  John C. Lin,et al.  High-flow nasal cannula may be no safer than non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for COVID-19 patients , 2020, Critical Care.

[16]  J. Fink,et al.  High-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 patients: low risk of bio-aerosol dispersion , 2020, European Respiratory Journal.

[17]  L. Camporota,et al.  COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? , 2020, Intensive Care Medicine.

[18]  M. Tobin.  Basing Respiratory Management of COVID-19 on Physiological Principles , 2020, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[19]  Daniel S. Chertow,et al.  Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) , 2020, Critical care medicine.

[20]  Yazdan Yazdanpanah,et al.  Severe SARS-CoV-2 infections: practical considerations and management strategy for intensivists , 2020, Intensive Care Medicine.

[21]  Zunyou Wu,et al.  Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. , 2020, JAMA.

[22]  B. Sztrymf,et al.  An Index Combining Respiratory Rate and Oxygenation to Predict Outcome of Nasal High-Flow Therapy. , 2019, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[23]  L. Brochard,et al.  High flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2019, Intensive Care Medicine.

[24]  N. Marjanovic,et al.  Early high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED: A before-after study. , 2019, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[25]  S. Keenan,et al.  Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure , 2017, European Respiratory Journal.

[26]  É. Azoulay,et al.  Noninvasive Ventilation and Outcomes Among Immunocompromised Patients--Reply. , 2016, JAMA.

[27]  S. Chevret,et al.  Effect of Noninvasive Ventilation vs Oxygen Therapy on Mortality Among Immunocompromised Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2015, JAMA.

[28]  L. Brochard,et al.  High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  J. Ross.  Randomized clinical trials and observational studies are more often alike than unlike. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[30]  Yves Cohen,et al.  Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure: trends in use and outcomes , 2014, Intensive Care Medicine.

[31]  P. Austin,et al.  The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: A simulation study , 2014, Statistical methods in medical research.

[32]  C. Brun-Buisson,et al.  Non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: intubation rate and risk factors , 2013, Critical Care.

[33]  B. Souweine,et al.  Outcomes in severe sepsis and patients with septic shock: Pathogen species and infection sites are not associated with mortality* , 2011, Critical care medicine.

[34]  Peter Jüni,et al.  An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses. , 2011, European heart journal.

[35]  Stephen R Cole,et al.  Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. , 2008, American journal of epidemiology.

[36]  Peter C Austin,et al.  A comparison of propensity score methods: a case‐study estimating the effectiveness of post‐AMI statin use , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[37]  J. Robins,et al.  Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[38]  L. Brochard,et al.  Secular trends in nosocomial infections and mortality associated with noninvasive ventilation in patients with exacerbation of COPD and pulmonary edema. , 2003, JAMA.

[39]  L. Brochard,et al.  Association of noninvasive ventilation with nosocomial infections and survival in critically ill patients. , 2000, JAMA.

[40]  C. Sprung,et al.  Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on "sepsis-related problems" of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. , 1998, Critical care medicine.

[41]  W. Knaus,et al.  The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. , 1991, Chest.

[42]  L. Bero,et al.  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials (Review) , 2017 .

[43]  S. Chevret,et al.  Changing use of noninvasive ventilation in critically ill patients: trends over 15 years in francophone countries , 2015, Intensive Care Medicine.

[44]  Arthur S Slutsky,et al.  Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome The Berlin Definition , 2012 .

[45]  S. Lemeshow,et al.  A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. , 1993, JAMA.