Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32564028›Full record

GuidelineRespiration; international review of thoracic diseases2020

Position Paper for the State-of-the-Art Application of Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19.

Michael Pfeifer, Santiago Ewig, Thomas Voshaar, Winfried Johannes Randerath, Torsten Bauer, Jens Geiseler, Dominic Dellweg, Michael Westhoff, Wolfram Windisch, Bernd Schönhofer and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on positive airway pressure adherence and patients' perspectives in Greece: the role of telemedicine.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Michael PfeiferKlinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinik Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Santiago EwigThoraxzentrum Ruhrgebiet, Department of Respiratory and Infectious Diseases, EVK Herne and Augusta-Krankenanstalt Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Thomas VoshaarSchwerpunkt Pneumologie, Allergologie, Klinische Immunologie, Zentrum für Schlaf- und Beatmungsmedizin, Krankenhaus Bethanien, Moers, Germany.
Winfried Johannes RanderathInstitut für Pneumologie an der Universität zu Köln, Cologne, Germany.
Torsten BauerLungenklinik Heckeshorn, Helios Klinikum Emil von Behring GmbH, Berlin, Germany, torsten.bauer@helios-gesundheit.de.
Jens GeiselerMedizinische Klinik IV: Klinik für Pneumologie, Beatmungs- und Schlafmedizin, Klinikum Vest GmbH, Paracelsus-Klinik, Marl, Germany.
Dominic DellwegFachkrankenhaus Kloster Grafschaft GmbH, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Philipps-Universität Marburg, Schmallenberg, Germany.
Michael WesthoffKlinik für Pneumologie, Lungenklinik Hemer, Hemer, Germany.
Wolfram WindischUniversität Witten-Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Bernd SchönhoferPneumologische Praxis und pneumologischer Konsildienst im Klinikum Agnes Karll Laatzen, Klinikum Region Hannover, Laatzen, Germany.
Stefan KlugeKlinik für Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Philipp M LepperInnere Medizin V: Pneumologie, Allergologie, Beatmungs- und Umweltmedizin, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Krankenhaus Bethanien · DEAugusta-Kranken-Anstalt · DEHelios Klinikum Emil von Behring · DEKlinik Donaustauf · DEKliniken der Stadt Köln · DEKlinikum Region Hannover · DEKlinikum Vest · DELungenklinik Hemer · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DEUniversitätsklinikum des Saarlandes · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Against the background of the pandemic caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the German Respiratory Society has appointed experts to develop therapy strategies for COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Here we present key position statements including observations about the pathophysiology of (ARF). In terms of the pathophysiology of pulmonary infection with SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 can be divided into 3 phases. Pulmonary damage in advanced COVID-19 often differs from the known changes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Two types (type L and type H) are differentiated, corresponding to early- and late-stage lung damage. This differentiation should be taken into consideration in the respiratory support of ARF. The assessment of the extent of ARF should be based on arterial or capillary blood gas analysis under room air conditions, and it needs to include the calculation of oxygen supply (measured from the variables of oxygen saturation, hemoglobin level, the corrected values of Hüfner's factor, and cardiac output). Aerosols can cause transmission of infectious, virus-laden particles. Open systems or vented systems can increase the release of respirable particles. Procedures in which the invasive ventilation system must be opened and endotracheal intubation carried out are associated with an increased risk of infection. Personal protective equipment (PPE) should have top priority because fear of contagion should not be a primary reason for intubation. Based on the current knowledge, inhalation therapy, nasal high-flow therapy (NHF), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can be performed without an increased risk of infection to staff if PPE is provided. A significant proportion of patients with ARF present with relevant hypoxemia, which often cannot be fully corrected, even with a high inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) under NHF. In this situation, the oxygen therapy can be escalated to CPAP or NIV when the criteria for endotracheal intubation are not met. In ARF, NIV should be carried out in an intensive care unit or a comparable setting by experienced staff. Under CPAP/NIV, a patient can deteriorate rapidly. For this reason, continuous monitoring and readiness for intubation are to be ensured at all times. If the ARF progresses under CPAP/NIV, intubation should be implemented without delay in patients who do not have a "do not intubate" order.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusRespiration, ArtificialAcute DiseaseCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Disease ProgressionGermanyHumansHypoxiaPandemicsPatient AcuityPneumonia, ViralRespiration DisordersRespiratory Distress SyndromeRespiratory InsufficiencySARS-CoV-2Acute respiratory failureCOVID-19Respiratory support

Identifiers

PMID32564028
PMCPMC7360514
OpenAlexW3036023078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.