ArticleRespiratory medicine2021
Incidence of pulmonary embolism in patients with non-invasive respiratory support during COVID-19 outbreak.
Article in Respiratory medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-Invasive Ventilation Support during Hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 and the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Exploring heterogeneity in reported venous thromboembolism risk in COVID-19 and comparison to other viral pneumonias: a systematic review and meta-regression.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Non-invasive respiratory support in the management of acute COVID-19 pneumonia: considerations for clinical practice and priorities for research.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2022Review
- Non-invasive Respiratory Support in COVID-19: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients is very high, in patients under non-invasive respiratory support (NIS) is still unknown. The specific incidence of thrombotic events in each of the clinical scenarios within the broad spectrum of severity of COVID-19, is not clearly established, and this has not allowed the implementation of thromboprophylaxis or anticoagulation for routine care in COVID-19. Patients admitted in a semi-critical unit treated initially with NIS, especially Continuous-Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), were included in the study. The cumulative incidence of pulmonary embolism was analyzed and compared between patients with good response to NIS and patients with clinical deterioration that required orotracheal intubation. 93 patients were included and 16% required mechanical ventilation (MV) after the NIS. The crude cumulative incidence of the PE was 14% (95%, CI 8-22) for all group. In patients that required orotracheal intubation and MV, the cumulative incidence was significantly higher [33% (95%, CI 16-58)] compared to patients that continued with non-invasive support [11% (CI 5-18)] (Log-Rank, p = 0.013). Patients that required mechanical ventilation were at higher risk of PE for a HR of 4.3 (95%CI 1.2-16). In conclusion, cumulative incidence of PE is remarkably higher in critically patients with a potential impact in COVID-19 evolution. In this context, patients under NIS are a very high-risk group for developing PE without a clear strategy regarding thromboprophylaxis.
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.