ArticleERJ open research2023
The use of continuous positive airway pressure during the second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in ERJ open research, 2023. 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, 5 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In a preliminary study during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave, we reported a high rate of success with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in preventing death and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). That study, however, was too small to identify risk factors for mortality, barotrauma and impact on subsequent IMV. Thus, we re-evaluated the efficacy of the same CPAP protocol in a larger series of patients during second and third pandemic waves. Methods: 281 COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (158 full-code and 123 do-not-intubate (DNI)), were managed with high-flow CPAP early in their hospitalisation. IMV was considered after 4 days of unsuccessful CPAP. Results: The overall recovery rate from respiratory failure was 50% in the DNI and 89% in the full-code group. Among the latter, 71% recovered with CPAP-only, 3% died under CPAP and 26% were intubated after a median CPAP time of 7 days (IQR: 5-12 days). Of the patients who were intubated, 68% recovered and were discharged from the hospital within 28 days. Barotrauma occurred during CPAP in <4% of patients. Age (OR 1.128; p <0.001) and tomographic severity score (OR 1.139; p=0.006) were the only independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions: Early treatment with CPAP is a safe option for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.
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.