Sixty-Day Mortality Among 520 Italian Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients According to the Adopted Ventilatory Strategy in the Context of an Integrated Multidisciplinary Clinical Organization: A Population-Based Cohort Study

  1. Antonella Potalivo
  2. Jonathan Montomoli
  3. Francesca Facondini
  4. Gianfranco Sanson
  5. Luigi Arcangelo Lazzari Agli
  6. Tiziana Perin
  7. Francesco Cristini
  8. Enrico Cavagna
  9. Raffaella De Giovanni
  10. Carlo Biagetti
  11. Ilaria Panzini
  12. Cinzia Ravaioli
  13. Maria Maddalena Bitondo
  14. Daniela Guerra
  15. Giovanni Giuliani
  16. Elena Mosconi
  17. Sonia Guarino
  18. Elisa Marchionni
  19. Gianfilippo Gangitano
  20. Ilaria Valentini
  21. Luca Giampaolo
  22. Francesco Muratore
  23. Giuseppe Nardi

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.2147/clep.s278709
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.13.20174615v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.13.20174615: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The AU SL della Romagna Institutional Review Board approved the project (registration number NCT04348448) with a waiver of informed consent.
    Consent: The AU SL della Romagna Institutional Review Board approved the project (registration number NCT04348448) with a waiver of informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All statistical analyses were performed using the software IBM SPSS Statistics, version 24.0 (Armonk, NY,
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    Strength and limitations: The main strength of the study consisted in having described the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in an entire province. Since all patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 were managed at the same hospital, a shared and homogeneous standard of care was guaranteed. Moreover, follow-up was established at 60 days, taking into account all respiratory supports and without patients’ loss. As many COVID-19 patients require prolonged IMV, a short follow-up time is an important limitation for the majority of the reports published so far. The number of patients requiring ventilatory support was smaller compared to other studies.2,3,10 Consequently, the generalizability of our findings should be considered with caution. Conclusions: The COVID-19 outbreak has strongly challenged the healthcare systems of many countries. A multidisciplinary panel in charge of the decision of the individualized breathing approach to adopt with hospitalized COVID-19 patients maybe be a valuable option to maximize 60-day survival, dealing with the imbalance between the available resources and the clinical needs. Our findings highlight the need of high quality follow-up data that could support the decision-making for the appropriate ventilatory support strategy for COVID-19 patients.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04348448Not yet recruitingObservational Study, Use of Canakinumab Administered Subcuta…

    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 10.1101/2020.08.13.20174615v1 on medRxiv