16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prehospital pulse oximetry: a red flag for early detection of silent hypoxemia in COVID-19 patients

      letter
      , ,
      Critical Care
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The COVID-19 pandemic, which has been expanding since the first cases in Asia in late 2019, may result in acute respiratory failure (ARF) with severe hypoxemia [1–3]. In prehospital settings, the paucity of clinical respiratory signs has made assessing the severity of some COVID-19 patients challenging. Indeed, even though hypoxic ARF generally leads to an increase in respiratory rate (RR) [4], in some COVID-19 patients, a persistent normal RR was inconsistent with the severity of hypoxia. Based on retrospective data, we aimed to describe the discrepancy between prehospital initial RR (RRi) and initial SpO2 (Spo2i; i.e., before oxygen supplementation, FiO2 = 21%) in COVID-19 patients suffering from ARF. We retrospectively examined consecutive COVID-19 patients suffering from ARF who were treated by the Paris Fire Brigade’s basic life-support (BLS) teams in the prehospital setting. Data were provided from primary home care providers. Based on a previous study [5], we used the SpO2i/RRi ratio as an estimator of the discrepancy insofar as a low numerator is associated with hypoxia, whereas a high denominator is typically associated with respiratory failure. After having measured the SpO2i/RRi values in COVID-19 patients, we compared them to those of non-COVID-19 patients (i.e., patients with other causes of ARF treated by the BLS teams over the previous 3 years in the same period). Continuous data were described as median (interquartile range) and were compared by applying the Kruskal-Wallis test. The French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care approved the trial protocol on April 7, 2020 (IRB 00010254-2020-055). The study examined 1201 patients who experienced COVID-19 between March 13 and 29, 2020. The median SpO2i/RRi value was significantly higher than that of patients treated in the previous 3 years (5 [4, 5] in 2020 versus 3.4 [2.4–4.5] in 2019, 3.3[2.2–4.4] in 2018, and 3.5[2.5–4.6] in 2017, p < 0.001, Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Scatter plot representing the initial SPO2 (SPO2i) and initial respiration rate (RRi) values for each patient, for COVID-19 (March 2020) and non-COVID-19 patients from the previous 3 years. The horizontal and vertical lines indicate the threshold values of SPO2 95% and respiration rate, 20 breaths per minute, respectively. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the median SPO2i/RRi value, between the period “13th to March 29, 2020,” and the three previous years (p value < 0.001). RRi, initial respiratory rate; SpO2i, initial pulse oximetry value; N, number of patients included In summary, this retrospective study based on prehospital first responder data highlighted a relatively higher discrepancy between SpO2i and RRi in COVID-19 ARF patients, in comparison with previous non-COVID-19 ARF patients. Without a systematic SpO2i measurement, a normal breathing rate could mask profound hypoxia and make severity assessment in COVID-19 patients all the more difficult in an out-of-hospital setting. Despite differences in worldwide prehospital emergency medical services, pulse oximetry is an accessible tool that prehospital healthcare providers can easily use. In conclusion, prehospital pulse oximetry might be used as a red flag for early detection of “silent hypoxemia” in COVID-19 patients. The prehospital SpO2i/RRi ratio needs further investigation because it might help to identify non-clinically obvious ARFs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China

          Abstract Background Since December 2019, when coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) emerged in Wuhan city and rapidly spread throughout China, data have been needed on the clinical characteristics of the affected patients. Methods We extracted data regarding 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 from 552 hospitals in 30 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in mainland China through January 29, 2020. The primary composite end point was admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of mechanical ventilation, or death. Results The median age of the patients was 47 years; 41.9% of the patients were female. The primary composite end point occurred in 67 patients (6.1%), including 5.0% who were admitted to the ICU, 2.3% who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation, and 1.4% who died. Only 1.9% of the patients had a history of direct contact with wildlife. Among nonresidents of Wuhan, 72.3% had contact with residents of Wuhan, including 31.3% who had visited the city. The most common symptoms were fever (43.8% on admission and 88.7% during hospitalization) and cough (67.8%). Diarrhea was uncommon (3.8%). The median incubation period was 4 days (interquartile range, 2 to 7). On admission, ground-glass opacity was the most common radiologic finding on chest computed tomography (CT) (56.4%). No radiographic or CT abnormality was found in 157 of 877 patients (17.9%) with nonsevere disease and in 5 of 173 patients (2.9%) with severe disease. Lymphocytopenia was present in 83.2% of the patients on admission. Conclusions During the first 2 months of the current outbreak, Covid-19 spread rapidly throughout China and caused varying degrees of illness. Patients often presented without fever, and many did not have abnormal radiologic findings. (Funded by the National Health Commission of China and others.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis

            Summary Background In the face of rapidly changing data, a range of case fatality ratio estimates for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been produced that differ substantially in magnitude. We aimed to provide robust estimates, accounting for censoring and ascertainment biases. Methods We collected individual-case data for patients who died from COVID-19 in Hubei, mainland China (reported by national and provincial health commissions to Feb 8, 2020), and for cases outside of mainland China (from government or ministry of health websites and media reports for 37 countries, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, until Feb 25, 2020). These individual-case data were used to estimate the time between onset of symptoms and outcome (death or discharge from hospital). We next obtained age-stratified estimates of the case fatality ratio by relating the aggregate distribution of cases to the observed cumulative deaths in China, assuming a constant attack rate by age and adjusting for demography and age-based and location-based under-ascertainment. We also estimated the case fatality ratio from individual line-list data on 1334 cases identified outside of mainland China. Using data on the prevalence of PCR-confirmed cases in international residents repatriated from China, we obtained age-stratified estimates of the infection fatality ratio. Furthermore, data on age-stratified severity in a subset of 3665 cases from China were used to estimate the proportion of infected individuals who are likely to require hospitalisation. Findings Using data on 24 deaths that occurred in mainland China and 165 recoveries outside of China, we estimated the mean duration from onset of symptoms to death to be 17·8 days (95% credible interval [CrI] 16·9–19·2) and to hospital discharge to be 24·7 days (22·9–28·1). In all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China (n=70 117), we estimated a crude case fatality ratio (adjusted for censoring) of 3·67% (95% CrI 3·56–3·80). However, after further adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment, we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53), with substantially higher ratios in older age groups (0·32% [0·27–0·38] in those aged <60 years vs 6·4% [5·7–7·2] in those aged ≥60 years), up to 13·4% (11·2–15·9) in those aged 80 years or older. Estimates of case fatality ratio from international cases stratified by age were consistent with those from China (parametric estimate 1·4% [0·4–3·5] in those aged <60 years [n=360] and 4·5% [1·8–11·1] in those aged ≥60 years [n=151]). Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39–1·33), with an increasing profile with age. Similarly, estimates of the proportion of infected individuals likely to be hospitalised increased with age up to a maximum of 18·4% (11·0–7·6) in those aged 80 years or older. Interpretation These early estimates give an indication of the fatality ratio across the spectrum of COVID-19 disease and show a strong age gradient in risk of death. Funding UK Medical Research Council.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Predicting success of high-flow nasal cannula in pneumonia patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: The utility of the ROX index.

              The purpose of the study is to describe early predictors and to develop a prediction tool that accurately identifies the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) in pneumonia patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) treated with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Daniel.jost@pompiersparis.fr
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                8 June 2020
                8 June 2020
                2020
                : 24
                : 313
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.477933.d, ISNI 0000 0001 2201 2713, Paris Fire Brigade, Emergency Medicine Department, ; 1 Place Jules Renard, 75017 Paris, France
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6046-1234
                Article
                3036
                10.1186/s13054-020-03036-9
                7278215
                32513249
                22bb60ea-d9ca-4c8e-991f-781ba1fc6558
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 20 May 2020
                : 27 May 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: NONE
                Categories
                Research Letter
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article