Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method
Nasa, Prashant; Azoulay, Elie; Khanna, Ashish K.; Jain, Ravi; Gupta, Sachin; Javeri, Yash; Juneja, Deven; Rangappa, Pradeep; Sundararajan, Krishnaswamy; Alhazzani, Waleed; Antonelli, Massimo; Arabi, Yaseen M.; Bakker, Jan; Brochard, Laurent J.; Deane, Adam M.; Du, Bin; Einav, Sharon; Esteban, Andrés; Gajic, Ognjen; Galvagno, Samuel M.; Guérin, Claude; Jaber, Samir; Khilnani, Gopi C.; Koh, Younsuck; Lascarrou, Jean-Baptiste; Machado, Flavia R.; Malbrain, Manu L. N. G.; Mancebo, Jordi; McCurdy, Michael T.; McGrath, Brendan A.; Mehta, Sangeeta; Mekontso-Dessap, Armand; Mer, Mervyn; Nurok, Michael; Park, Pauline K.; Pelosi, Paolo; Peter, John V.; Phua, Jason; Pilcher, David V.; Piquilloud, Lise; Schellongowski, Peter; Schultz, Marcus J.; Shankar-Hari, Manu; Singh, Suveer; Sorbello, Massimiliano; Tiruvoipati, Ravindranath; Udy, Andrew A.; Welte, Tobias; Myatra, Sheila N.
2021-03-16
Citation
Critical Care. 2021 Mar 16;25(1):106
Abstract
Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Methods Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). Results Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16–24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Conclusion Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. Trial registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.Deep Blue DOI
Types
Journal Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.