tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Hosp Pract (1995)
. 2022 Feb 25.
doi: 10.1080/21548331.2022.2047310. Online ahead of print.
Evaluation of aerosolized epoprostenol for hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019
Vivek Kataria[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Klayton Ryman[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ginger Tsai-Nguyen[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yosafe Wakwaya[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ariel Modrykamien[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Objectives: Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals.
Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective study with adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and thirty in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. Need of mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated.
Results: The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was not a statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders.
Conclusion: The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.
Keywords: Coronavirus 2019; aerosolized; epoprostenol; hypoxia; vasodilator.
. 2022 Feb 25.
doi: 10.1080/21548331.2022.2047310. Online ahead of print.
Evaluation of aerosolized epoprostenol for hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019
Vivek Kataria[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Klayton Ryman[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Ginger Tsai-Nguyen[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Yosafe Wakwaya[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Ariel Modrykamien[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 35212586
- DOI: 10.1080/21548331.2022.2047310
Abstract
Objectives: Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals.
Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective study with adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and thirty in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. Need of mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated.
Results: The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was not a statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders.
Conclusion: The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.
Keywords: Coronavirus 2019; aerosolized; epoprostenol; hypoxia; vasodilator.