Predictors of Respiratory Support Use in Emergency Department Patients With COVID-19-Related Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND:

Given the known downstream implications of choice of respiratory support on patient outcomes, all factors influencing these decisions, even those not limited to the patient, warrant close consideration. We examined the effect of emergency department (ED)–specific system factors, such as work load and census, on the use of noninvasive versus invasive respiratory support.

METHODS:

We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study of all adult subjects with severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission from 5 EDs within a single urban health care system. Subject demographics, severity of illness, and the type of respiratory support used were obtained. Using continuous measures of ED census, boarding, and active management, we estimated ED work load for each subjects’ ED stay. The subjects were categorized by type(s) of respiratory support used: low-flow oxygen, noninvasive respiratory support (eg, noninvasive ventilation [NIV] and/or high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]), invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation after trial of NIV/HFNC. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine system factors associated with the type of respiratory support used in the ED.

RESULTS:

A total of 634 subjects were included. Of these, 431 (70.0%) were managed on low-flow oxygen alone, 108 (17.0%) on NIV/HFNC, 54 (8.5%) on invasive mechanical ventilation directly, and 41 (6.5%) on NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED. Higher severity of illness and underlying lung disease increased the odds of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 1.05 [95% CI 1.03–1.07] and odds ratio 3.47 [95% CI 1.37–8.78], respectively). Older age decreased odds of being on invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 0.96 [95% CI 0.94–0.99]). As ED work load increased, the odds for subjects to be managed initially with NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation increased 6–8-fold.

CONCLUSIONS:

High ED work load was associated with higher odds on HFNC/NIV prior to invasive mechanical ventilation.