Comparison of Early and Late Intubation in COVID-19 and Its Effect on Mortality

Intubation Decision Based on Illness Severity and Mortality in COVID-19: An International Study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of intubation timing, guided by severity criteria, on mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients, amidst existing uncertainties regarding optimal intubation practices.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted from February 1, 2020, to November 1, 2022.

SETTING

Ten academic institutions in the United States and Europe.

PATIENTS

Adults (≥ 18 yr old) confirmed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and hospitalized specifically for COVID-19, requiring intubation postadmission. Exclusion criteria included patients hospitalized for non-COVID-19 reasons despite a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

INTERVENTIONS

Early invasive mechanical ventilation (EIMV) was defined as intubation in patients with less severe organ dysfunction (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] < 7 or Pa o2 /F io2 ratio > 250), whereas late invasive mechanical ventilation (LIMV) was defined as intubation in patients with SOFA greater than or equal to 7 and Pa o2 /F io2 ratio less than or equal to 250.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was mortality within 30 days of hospital admission. Among 4464 patients, 854 (19.1%) required mechanical ventilation (mean age 60 yr, 61.7% male, 19.3% Black). Of those, 621 (72.7%) were categorized in the EIMV group and 233 (27.3%) in the LIMV group. Death within 30 days after admission occurred in 278 patients (42.2%) in the EIMV and 88 patients (46.6%) in the LIMV group ( p = 0.28). An inverse probability-of-treatment weighting analysis revealed a statistically significant association with mortality, with patients in the EIMV group being 32% less likely to die either within 30 days of admission (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.90; p = 0.008) or within 30 days after intubation irrespective of its timing from admission (adjusted HR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.90; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

In severe COVID-19 cases, an early intubation strategy, guided by specific severity criteria, is associated with a reduced risk of death. These findings underscore the importance of timely intervention based on objective severity assessments.

Intubation Time, Lung Mechanics and Outcome in COVID-19 Patients Suffering Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Single-Center Study

Background

We examined the effect of intubation time and the lung mechanics on clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

Methods

Based on the patient's hospital admission, intubation time was defined as early (≤ 2 days) or late (> 2 days). Patients were further divided into three groups; early (≤ 3 days), late (4 - 6 days), and very late (> 6 days) intubated.

Results

A total of 194 patients were included; 66.5% male, median age 65 years. Fifty-eight patients (29.9%) were intubated early and 136 (70.1%) late. Early intubated patients revealed lower mortality (44.8% vs. 72%, P < 0.001), were younger (60 vs. 67, P = 0.002), had lower sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores (6 vs. 8, P = 0.002) and higher lung compliance on admission days 1, 6 and 12 (42 vs. 36, P = 0.006; 40 vs. 33, P < 0.001; and 37.5 vs. 32, P < 0.001, respectively). Older age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.15, P < 0.001), intubation time (aOR = 1.15, P = 0.004), high SOFA scores (aOR = 1.81, P < 0.001), low partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/fractional inspired oxygen tension (FiO2) ratio (aOR = 0.96, P = 0.001), and low lung compliance on admission days 1 and 12 (aOR = 1.12, P = 0.012 and aOR = 1.14, P < 0.001, respectively) were associated with higher mortality. Very late and late intubated patients had higher mortality rates than patients intubated early (78.4% vs. 63.4% vs. 44.6%, respectively, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Among COVID-19 intubated patients, age, late intubation, high SOFA scores, low PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and low lung compliance are associated with higher intensive care unit (ICU) mortality.

Clinical Characteristics of Severe COVID-19 Patients During Omicron Epidemic and a Nomogram Model Integrating Cell-Free DNA for Predicting Mortality: A Retrospective Analysis

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and risk factors of death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the epidemic of Omicron variants, assess the clinical value of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and construct a prediction nomogram for patient mortality.

Methods

The study included 282 patients with severe COVID-19 from December 2022 to January 2023. Patients were divided into survival and death groups based on 60-day prognosis. We compared the clinical characteristics, traditional laboratory indicators, and cfDNA concentrations at admission of the two groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors for death in patients with severe COVID-19. A prediction nomogram for patient mortality was constructed using R software, and an internal validation was performed.

Results

The median age of the patients included was 80.0 (71.0, 86.0) years, and 67.7% (191/282) were male. The mortality rate was 55.7% (157/282). Age, tracheal intubation, shock, cfDNA, and urea nitrogen (BUN) were the independent risk factors for death in patients with severe COVID-19, and the area under the curve (AUC) for cfDNA in predicting patient mortality was 0.805 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.713-0.898, sensitivity 81.4%, specificity 75.6%, and cut-off value 97.67 ng/mL). These factors were used to construct a prediction nomogram for patient mortality (AUC = 0.856, 95% CI: 0.814-0.899, sensitivity 78.3%, and specificity 78.4%), C-index was 0.856 (95% CI: 0.832-0.918), mean absolute error of the calibration curve was 0.007 between actual and predicted probabilities, and Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed no statistical difference (χ2=6.085, P=0.638).

Conclusion

There was a high mortality rate among patients with severe COVID-19. cfDNA levels ≥97.67 ng/mg can significantly increase mortality. When predicting mortality in patients with severe COVID-19, a nomogram based on age, tracheal intubation, shock, cfDNA, and BUN showed high accuracy and consistency.

Utility and timing of the respiratory rate-oxygenation index in the prediction of high-flow oxygen therapy failure in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of infective etiology: a prospective observational study

During and following the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has witnessed a surge in high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) use. The ability to provide high oxygenation levels with remarkable comfort levels has been the grounds for the same. Despite the advantages, delays in intubation leading to poor overall outcomes have been noticed in subgroups of patients on HFOT. The respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index has been proposed to be a useful indicator to predict HFOT success. In this study, we have examined the utility of the ROX index prospectively in cases of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to infective etiologies. A total of 70 participants were screened, and 55 were recruited for the study. The majority of participants were males (56.4%), with diabetes mellitus being the most common comorbidity (29.1%). The mean age of the study subjects was 46.27±15.6 years. COVID-19 (70.9%) was the most common etiology for AHRF, followed by scrub typhus (21.8%). 19 (34.5%) experienced HFOT failure, and 9 (16.4%) subjects died during the study period. Demographic characteristics did not differ between either of the two groups (HFOT success versus failure and survived group versus expired group). The ROX index was significantly different between the HFOT success versus failure group at baseline, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours. The best cut-offs of the ROX index at baseline and 2 hours were 4.4 (sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 86.7%) and 4.3 (sensitivity 94.4% and specificity 86.7%), respectively. The ROX index was found to be an efficient tool in predicting HFOT failure in cases of AHRF with infective etiology.

Does the intubation timeline affect the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients? A retrospective cohort study

Background

Effective strategies for managing coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients suffering from acute respiratory distress are constantly evolving. The timeline and threshold for transitioning from non-invasive ventilation to intermittent mandatory ventilation in critical cases who develop COVID-19-related respiratory distress are undetermined. The present research intends to investigate if emergency room intubations in COVID-19 patients affect mortality.

Methods

Between January 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021, we retrospectively reviewed chart analysis on all patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 screening and who underwent endotracheal intubation. Depending on when the intubation was performed; early in the emergency room or delayed outside the emergency room, patients were separated into two cohorts. In addition to comorbid clinical manifestations, the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, and in-hospital mortality were all recorded as demographic and clinical information.

Results

Fifty-eight of the 224 corona-positive patients who underwent intubation had their intubations performed in the emergency room. Age, sex, alcohol use, and smoking status did not significantly differ between the two categories at the baseline. The mean qSOFA score was higher in the early intubation cohort (3.5; p < 0.000) along with more underlying comorbidities (3.0; p < 0.000). When compared to the late intubation cohort (45.78%), patients treated with early intubation had a significantly greater death rate (67.24%).

Conclusion

In summary, we discovered that patients who underwent intubation in the emergency units exhibited a high quick SOFA score as well as maximum co-morbid conditions than patients intubated somewhere else in the hospital. The findings of our investigation imply that intubating patients too early might be risky.

Brixia and qSOFA Scores, Coagulation Factors and Blood Values in Spring versus Autumn 2021 Infection in Pregnant Critical COVID-19 Patients: A Preliminary Study

(1) Background: From the recent variants of concern of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in which the delta variant generated more negative outcomes than the alpha, we hypothesized that lung involvement, clinical condition deterioration and blood alterations were also more severe in autumn infection, when the delta variant dominated (compared with spring infections, when the alpha variant dominated), in severely infected pregnant patients. (2) Methods: In a prospective study, all pregnant patients admitted to the ICU of the Elena Doamna Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital with a critical form of COVID-19 infection—spring group (n = 11) and autumn group (n = 7)—between 1 January 2021 and 1 December 2021 were included. Brixia scores were calculated for every patient: A score, upon admittance; H score, the highest score throughout hospitalization; and E score, at the end of hospitalization. For each day of Brixia A, H or E score, the qSOFA (quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment) score was calculated, and the blood values were also considered. (3) Results: Brixia E score, C-reactive protein, GGT and LDH were much higher, while neutrophil count was much lower in autumn compared with spring critical-form pregnant patients. (4) Conclusions: the autumn infection generated more dramatic alterations than the spring infection in pregnant patients with critical forms of COVID-19. Larger studies with more numerous participants are required to confirm these results.