Chest X-ray Does Not Predict the Risk of Endotracheal Intubation and Escalation of Treatment in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Noninvasive Respiratory Support

0Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Forms of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) have been widely used to avoid endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, inappropriate prolongation of NIRS may delay endotracheal intubation and worsen patient outcomes. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess whether the CARE score, a chest X-ray score previously validated in COVID-19 patients, may predict the need for endotracheal intubation and escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients requiring NIRS. From December 2020 to May 2021, we included 142 patients receiving NIRS who had a first chest X-ray available at NIRS initiation and a second one after 48–72 h. In 94 (66%) patients, the level of respiratory support was increased, while endotracheal intubation was required in 83 (58%) patients. The CARE score at NIRS initiation was not predictive of the need for endotracheal intubation (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96–1.06) or escalation of treatment (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96–1.07). In conclusion, chest X-ray severity, as assessed by the CARE score, did not allow predicting endotracheal intubation or escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients undergoing NIRS.

References Powered by Scopus

21584Citations
23732Readers
Get full text

This article is free to access.

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pettenuzzo, T., Giraudo, C., Fichera, G., Della Paolera, M., Tocco, M., Weber, M., … Navalesi, P. (2022). Chest X-ray Does Not Predict the Risk of Endotracheal Intubation and Escalation of Treatment in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Noninvasive Respiratory Support. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061636

Readers over time

‘22‘23‘2402468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 3

75%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2

40%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

20%

Computer Science 1

20%

Engineering 1

20%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0