Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33521312›Full record

ArticleMedicina clinica (English ed.)2021

Alternative CPAP methods for the treatment of secondary serious respiratory failure due to pneumonia by COVID-19.

Alonso Mateos-Rodríguez, Justo Ortega-Anselmi, Francisco Javier Candel-González, Jesús Canora-Lebrato, Marcos Fragiel-Saavedra, Alba Hernández-Píriz, Navid Behzadi-Koocahni, Juan González-Del Castillo, Antonio Pérez-Alonso, María Luisa de la Cruz-Conty and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicina clinica (English ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Temporary hospitals in times of the COVID pandemic. An example and a practical view.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2021
    Review
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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Alonso Mateos-RodríguezHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Justo Ortega-AnselmiHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Francisco Javier Candel-GonzálezHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Jesús Canora-LebratoHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Marcos Fragiel-SaavedraHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Alba Hernández-PírizHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Navid Behzadi-KoocahniHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Juan González-Del CastilloHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio Pérez-AlonsoHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
María Luisa de la Cruz-ContyFacultad de Medicina, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain.
Gonzalo García-de CasasolaHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Javier Marco-MartínezHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio Zapatero-GaviriaHospital de Campaña IFEMA COVID-19, Madrid, Spain.
Hospital Clínico San Carlos · ESHospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada · ESMadrid Health Service · ESHospital Universitario Infanta Cristina · ESUniversidad Francisco de Vitoria · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 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 min 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

COVID 19CPAPRespiratory insufficience

Identifiers

PMID33521312
PMCPMC7832656
OpenAlexW3114944929

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.