Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) face-mask ventilation is an easy and cheap option to manage a massive influx of patients presenting acute respiratory failure during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: A retrospective cohort study

  1. Sophie Alviset
  2. Quentin Riller
  3. Jérôme Aboab
  4. Kelly Dilworth
  5. Pierre-Antoine Billy
  6. Yannis Lombardi
  7. Mathilde Azzi
  8. Luis Ferreira Vargas
  9. Laurent Laine
  10. Mathilde Lermuzeaux
  11. Nathalie Mémain
  12. Daniel Silva
  13. Tona Tchoubou
  14. Daria Ushmorova
  15. Hanane Dabbagh
  16. Simon Escoda
  17. Rémi Lefrançois
  18. Annelyse Nardi
  19. Armand Ngima
  20. Vincent Ioos

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0240645
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.01.20118018v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.01.20118018: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethics: The study was approved by the national ethics review board (CNRIPH - Commission Nationale des Recherches Impliquant
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The analyses were carried out using R version 3.6.2 (The R Project For Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; http://www.R-project.org).
    R Project For Statistical
    suggested: (R Project for Statistical Computing, RRID:SCR_001905)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    However it was used in patients with less profound hypoxemia than in our cohort (5 to 6 l/m), and a lower percentage (10 to 30%) of patients required intubation 23,24 This study has several limitations. Firstly, due to its retrospective design, we were unable to collect additional data that could have contributed to a better understanding of the role of CPAP in managing hypoxemic respiratory failure in COVID-19. Data on actual pressure levels delivered to each patient and the number of hours per day of CPAP therapy could not be retrieved. In addition, it was not possible to ascertain in all patients whether vital signs (SpO2, respiratory rate) and arterial blood gases were taken while on CPAP or while on non-rebreather mask. Finally, the absence of a control group does not allow us to make any firm conclusion on the role of CPAP in avoiding intubation. Secondly, due to small sample size, the observed effect of CPAP in avoiding invasive mechanical ventilation within a sub-group of patients could be biased by concomitant treatments (drugs and/or prone positioning during spontaneous breathing) administered to spontaneously breathing-patients. Another possible limiting factor are the higher oxygen flow rates used during CPAP therapy compared with nonrebreather masks (20 to 30 l/m versus 15 l/m), which could have contributed to the clinical improvement of patients, by increasing the FiO2 delivered. It is therefore difficult to conclude that patients improved uniquely because of CP...

    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.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.01.20118018v1 on medRxiv