Early CPAP reduced mortality in covid-19 patients. Audit results from Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

  1. Abdul Ashish
  2. Alison Unsworth
  3. Jane Martindale
  4. Luigi Sedda
  5. Ramachandran Sundar
  6. Martin Farrier

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

COVID-19 infection typically causes pneumonia with bilateral changes on Chest radiograph. There is significant hypoxia and use of oxygen for patients admitted to hospital is standard. The use of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) in patients with COVID-19 has now become established as a common clinical practice based on recent experience. It is given as part of “best endeavours” treatment in the absence of sufficient evidence to guide best practice. The use of CPAP as a step up in clinical care is now common but has a poor evidence base.

Using routinely collected data, the use of CPAP as a supportive non-invasive ventilatory treatment is described in 35 patients with COVID infection. Patients given early CPAP and in particular within 48 hours of admission, are shown to have a better outcome (a significant probability of lower mortality) than patients who received late CPAP (more than 48 hours after admission).

Although the analysis is affected by a small sample size, the results have shown good evidence that supports the early use of CPAP in patients with COVID-19 infection.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.28.20116152: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableThere were a total of 35 patients, 12 females and 13 males.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.05.28.20116152v1 on medRxiv