Abstract
Rationale The role of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in severe COVID-19 remains a matter of debate.
Objectives To determine the utilization and outcome of NIV in COVID-19 in an unbiased cohort.
Methods Observational study of confirmed COVID-19 cases of claims data of the Local Health Care Funds comparing patients with non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) between spring versus autumn period 2020.
Measurements and Main Results Nationwide cohort of 7490 cases (median/IQR age 70/60–79 years, 66% male) 3851 (51%) patients primarily received IMV without NIV, 1614 (22%) patients received NIV without subsequent intubation, and 1247 (17%) patients had NIV failure (NIV-F), defined by subsequent endotracheal intubation. The proportion of patients who received invasive MV decreased from 74% to 39% during the second period. Accordingly, the proportion of patients with NIV exclusively increased from 10% to 28%, and those failing NIV increased from 9% to 21%. Median length of hospital stay decreased from 26 to 22 days, and duration of MV decreased from 11.6 to 7.6 days. The NIV failure rate decreased from 49% to 42%. Overall mortality remained unchanged (51% versus 53%). Mortality was 39% with NIV-only, 52% with IMV and 66% with NIV-F with mortality rates steadily increasing from 58% in early NIV-F (day 1) to 75% in late NIV-F (>4 days).
Conclusion Utilization of NIV rapidly increased during the autumn period, which was associated with a reduced duration of MV, but not with overall mortality. High NIV-F rates are associated with increased mortality, particularly in late NIV-F.
Funding Institutional support and physical resources were provided by the University Witten/Herdecke and Kliniken der Stadt Köln and the Federal Association of the Local Health Care Funds.
Scientific Knowledge on the Subject Current management of ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure is heterogeneous. Despite increasing use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV), defining intubation criteria still remains a matter of uncertainty and discussion, especially with regard to the balance between the NIV benefits and the risk of NIV failure. In addition, robust data concerning the influence of the duration and failure of NIV on intubation and mortality rates are still missing, although the time span between initiation of NIV and subsequent intubation in case of respiratory failure progression is suggested to influence patient outcome.
What This Study Adds to the Field This is the first large observational study describing differences of ventilatory strategies between the spring and autumn period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany and provides the in-hospital mortality rate of 7,490 patients who received mechanical ventilation. The increased utilization of NIV from 10% (first period) to 29% (second period) was associated with overall reduced durations of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay, but overall mortality remained comparably high and reached 51%, 53% respectively. Patients succeeding with NIV had lower mortality rates than those getting intubated without preceding NIV attempts, but those failing NIV had higher mortality rates, respectively, and this became even more predominant in late NIV failure. The present observational study shows the increasing role of NIV in the concert of ICU medicine related to COVID-19, but also clearly addresses its risks in addition to its benefits, both impacting on mortality.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Karagiannidis reports personal fees from Maquet, personal fees from Xenios, personal fees from Bayer, non-financial support from Speaker of the German register of ICUs, grants from German Ministry of Research and Education, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Hentschker has nothing to disclose. Dr. Westhoff has nothing to disclose. Dr. Weber-Carstens has nothing to disclose. Dr. Janssens has nothing to disclose. Dr. Kluge reports non-financial support from Ambu, ETView Ltd, Fisher & Paykel and Xenios., grants from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, personal fees from Astra, C.R. Bard, Baxter, Biotest, Cytosorbents, Fresenius, Gilead, MSD, Pfizer, Philips, ZOLL, personal fees and other from Bayer, Fresenius, Gilead, MSD und Pfizer, outside the submitted work. MP reports no conflicts of interests in regard to the manuscript lecture fees from Boehringer, Novartis, Astra_Zeneca, Roche and fees for advisory board meetings from Boehringer, Novartis, Roche Current president of the German Society of Pneumology. Dr. Spies reports grants from Public Grants, grants from IIT grants from companies, other from Meeting support from companies (e.g. for the Leopoldina 2020 meeting), outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Spies has a patent EEG monitoring licensed, and a patent Ceilings licensed. Dr. Welte reports grants from German Minstry of Research and Education, during the conduct of the study.
Clinical Trial
Study was not registered
Funding Statement
Institutional support and physical resources were provided by the University Witten/Herdecke and Kliniken der Stadt Koeln and the Federal Association of the Local Health Care Funds.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the local ethical committee (University Witten/Herdecke, 92/2020).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
E-mail of all authors: Karagiannidis, Christian (Christian.Karagiannidis{at}uni-wh.de), Carina Mostert (carina.mostert{at}wido.bv.aok.de), Michael Westhoff (michael.westhoff{at}lkhemer.de), Corinna Hentschker (Corinna.Hentschker{at}wido.bv.aok.de), Uwe Janssens (uwe.janssens{at}sah-eschweiler.de), Steffen Weber-Carstens (steffen.weber-carstens{at}charite.de), Stefan Kluge (s.kluge{at}uke.de), Michael Pfeifer (Michael.Pfeifer{at}ukr.de), Tobias Welte (welte.tobias{at}mh-hannover.de), Rolf Rossaint (rrossaint{at}ukaachen.de), Claudia Spies (Claudia.spies{at}charite.de) and Wolfram Windisch (windischw{at}kliniken-koeln.de)
Data Availability
Data can be viewed upon request.
