A comparative study on the outcomes of mechanically ventilated covid-19 vs non-covid-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

9Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a surge of patients requiring mechanical ventilation over a short period of time. The morbidity and mortality outcome in these patients have been variably reported in the published literature. Comparative analyses of ventilated COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients during the same time period have been lacking. Methods: Prospective data for each mechanically ventilated patient was collected from both COVID-19 and non-COVID ICU for a period of 8 months. Their demographic details and disease severity scores were included. Risk-adjusted outcomes across two groups were analyzed using multivariable regression methods. Results: Crude ICU and hospital mortality were similar in COVID-19-and non-COVID-19 ventilated groups (43.8 vs 40% and 43.8 vs 41.1%, respectively; p >0.05). After risk adjustment for the severity of illness by APACHE IV, no significant differences were observed in ICU mortality (OR 1.498; 95% CI 0.669–3.327; p = 0.328) and hospital mortality (OR 1.574; 95% CI 0.707–3.504; p = 0.267). However, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients had increased ICU stay (OR 6.261; 95% CI 3.778–8.744; p <0.001) as well as prolonged ventilatory support (OR 4.358; 95% CI 2.910–7.424; p <0.001) when compared to non-COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: In mechanically ventilated patients, no significant differences in terms of mortality were noted between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients had longer ICU stay and more number of days on ventilation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Todi, S., & Ghosh, S. (2021). A comparative study on the outcomes of mechanically ventilated covid-19 vs non-covid-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 25(12), 1377–1381. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24009

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free