Observational studyMedicina clinica2021
[Alternative CPAP methods for the treatment of secondary serious respiratory failure due to pneumonia by COVID-19].
Observational study in Medicina clinica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of devices that provide continuous positive pressure in the airway has shown improvement in various pathologies that cause respiratory failure. In the COVID-19 pandemic episode the use of these devices has become widespread, but, due to the shortage of conventional continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices, alternative devices have been manufactured. The objective of this study is to describe the use of these devices, as well as their efficacy. MATERIAL AND
methodsData are collected from patients admitted for pneumonia due to COVID-19 at the IFEMA Field Hospital. Data are collected from 23 patients with respiratory failure and need for ventilatory support.
resultsStudy carried out on a total of 23 patients, dated admission to IFEMA. Alternative CPAP was used in five patients (21.7%), while ventilatory support with a reservoir mask or Ventimask Venturi effect was used in the remaining 18 patients (78.3%). A progressive increase in saturation is observed in those patients in whom alternative CPAP was used (from 94% on average to 98 and 99% on average after 30 and 60 minutes with the mask, respectively), although this change was not significant (p = 0.058 and p = 0.122, respectively). No significant change in RF was observed at the beginning and end of the measurement in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.423), but among those who did not use alternative CPAP (p = 0.001). A statistically significant improvement in the variable oxygen saturation / fraction inspired by oxygen is observed in patients who used alternative CPAP (p = 0.040)
conclusionThe use of these devices has helped the ventilatory work of several patients by improving their oxygenation parameters. To better observe the evolution of patients undergoing this therapy and compare them with patients with other types of ventilatory support, further studies are necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.