The HACOR Score Predicts Worse in-Hospital Prognosis in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Effect of noninvasive ventilation on mortality and clinical outcomes among patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia after high-flow nasal oxygen failure: a multicenter retrospective French cohort with propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effect of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on mortality and length of stay after high flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) failure among patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective study, we enrolled COVID-19 patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) for severe COVID-19 pneumonia with a HFNO failure from December 2020 to January 2022. The primary outcome was to compare the 90-day mortality between patients who required a straight intubation after HFNO failure and patients who received NIV after HFNO failure. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay. A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounding factors between groups. Exploratory outcomes included a subgroup analysis for 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

We included 461 patients with HFNO failure in the analysis, 233 patients in the straight intubation group and 228 in the NIV group. The 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between groups, 58/228 (25.4%) int the NIV group compared with 59/233 (25.3%) in the straight intubation group, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) after propensity score weighting of 0.82 [95%CI, 0.50-1.35] (p = 0.434). ICU length of stay was significantly shorter in the NIV group compared to the straight intubation group, 10.0 days [IQR, 7.0-19.8] versus 18.0 days [IQR,11.0-31.0] with a propensity score weighted HR of 1.77 [95%CI, 1.29-2.43] (p < 0.001). A subgroup analysis showed a significant increase in mortality rate for intubated patients in the NIV group with 56/122 (45.9%), compared to 59/233 (25.3%) for patients in the straight intubation group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In severely hypoxemic COVID-19 patients, no significant differences were observed on 90-day mortality between patients receiving straight intubation and those receiving NIV after HFNO failure. NIV strategy was associated with a significant reduction in ICU length of stay, despite an increase in mortality in the subgroup of patients finally intubated.

Non-Invasive Ventilation for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Outcomes and Predictors of Failure from an ICU Cohort

Background and Objectives: The use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains controversial. NIV failure in the setting of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is associated with increased mortality, highlighting the need for careful patient selection. Methods and Methods: This is a retrospective observational cohort study. We included 140 patients with severe CAP, treated with either NIV or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) as their primary oxygenation strategy. Results: The median PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SOFA score upon ICU admission were 151 mmHg and 6, respectively. We managed 76% of patients with NIV initially and report an NIV success rate of 59%. Overall, the 28-day mortality was 25%, whilst for patients with NIV success, the mortality was significantly lower at 13%. In the univariate analysis, NIV failure was associated with the SOFA score (OR 1.33), the HACOR score (OR 1.14) and the presence of septic shock (OR 3.99). The SOFA score has an AUC of 0.75 for NIV failure upon ICU admission, whilst HACOR has an AUC of 0.76 after 2 h of NIV. Conclusions: Our results suggest that a SOFA ≤ 4 and an HACOR ≤ 5 are reasonable thresholds to identify patients with severe CAP likely to benefit from NIV.

New and personalized ventilatory strategies in patients with COVID-19

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and may lead to severe respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV). At hospital admission, patients can present with severe hypoxemia and dyspnea requiring increasingly aggressive MV strategies according to the clinical severity: noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), MV, and the use of rescue strategies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Among NRS strategies, new tools have been adopted for critically ill patients, with advantages and disadvantages that need to be further elucidated. Advances in the field of lung imaging have allowed better understanding of the disease, not only the pathophysiology of COVID-19 but also the consequences of ventilatory strategies. In cases of refractory hypoxemia, the use of ECMO has been advocated and knowledge on handling and how to personalize strategies have increased during the pandemic. The aims of the present review are to: (1) discuss the evidence on different devices and strategies under NRS; (2) discuss new and personalized management under MV based on the pathophysiology of COVID-19; and (3) contextualize the use of rescue strategies such as ECMO in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Lipoprotein(a) Does Not Predict Thrombotic Events and In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19

The prothrombotic and proinflammatory properties of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) have been hypothesized to play a role in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19; however, the prognostic impact of Lp(a) on the clinical course of COVID-19 remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate whether Lp(a) may be associated with biomarkers of thrombo-inflammation and the occurrence of thrombotic events or adverse clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. We consecutively enrolled a cohort of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and collected blood samples for Lp(a) assessment at hospital admission. A prothrombotic state was evaluated through D-dimer levels, whereas a proinflammatory state was evaluated through C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, and white blood cell (WBC) levels. Thrombotic events were marked by the diagnosis of deep or superficial vein thrombosis (DVT or SVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and critical limb ischemia (CLI). The composite clinical end point of intensive care unit (ICU) admission/in-hospital death was used to evaluate adverse clinical outcomes. Among 564 patients (290 (51%) men, mean age of 74 ± 17 years) the median Lp(a) value at hospital admission was 13 (10-27) mg/dL. During hospitalization, 64 (11%) patients were diagnosed with at least one thrombotic event and 83 (15%) patients met the composite clinical end point. Lp(a), as either a continuous or categorical variable, was not associated with D-dimer, CRP, procalcitonin, and WBC levels (p > 0.05 for all correlation analyses). In addition, Lp(a) was not associated with a risk of thrombotic events (p > 0.05 for multi-adjusted odds ratios) nor with a risk of adverse clinical outcomes (p > 0.05 for multi-adjusted hazard ratios). In conclusion, Lp(a) does not influence biomarkers of plasma thrombotic activity and systemic inflammation nor has any impact on thrombotic events and adverse clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.