Acute Respiratory Failure From Early Pandemic COVID-19: Noninvasive Respiratory Support vs Mechanical Ventilation.

Background: The optimal strategy for initial respiratory support in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 is unclear, and the initial strategy may affect outcomes.

Research Question: Which initial respiratory support strategy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure?

Study Design And Methods: All patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support and admitted to a large health care network were eligible for inclusion. We compared patients treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation by facemask or high-flow nasal oxygen) with patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The primary outcome was time to in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included unweighted and weighted assessments of mortality, lengths of stay (ICU and hospital), and time to intubation.

Results: Nearly one-half of the 2,354 patients (47%) who met inclusion criteria received IMV first, and 53% received initial NIRS. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 38% (37% for IMV and 39% for NIRS). Initial NIRS was associated with an increased hazard of death compared with initial IMV (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.94), but also an increased hazard of leaving the hospital sooner that waned with time (noninvasive support by time interaction: hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98).

Interpretation: Patients with COVID-19 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure initially treated with NIRS showed an increased hazard of in-hospital death.