Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Conservative management of Covid 19 associated hypoxemia

Thomas Voshaar, Patrick Stais, Dieter Köhler, Dominic Dellweg
ERJ Open Research 2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00026-2021
Thomas Voshaar
1Bethanien hospital Moers, Moers, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Stais
1Bethanien hospital Moers, Moers, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dieter Köhler
2Kloster Grafschaft, Schmallenberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dominic Dellweg
2Kloster Grafschaft, Schmallenberg, Germany
3Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: d.dellweg@fkkg.de
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Invasive mechanical ventilation of hypoxemic Covid 19 patients is associated with mortality rates of more than 50%. We evaluated clinical outcome data of two hospitals that agreed on a predefined protocol for restrictive use of invasive ventilation where the decision to intubate was based on the clinical presentation and oxygen content rather than on the degree of hypoxemia.

Method Data analysis of patients with positive PCR-testing for SARS-CoV-2, typical history, and symptoms and pulmonary infiltrates who exhibited oxygen saturation values of less than 93%.

Results We identified 78 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The SaO2 nadir was 84.4±6.5% for the whole group. Fifty-three patients (68%) received nasal oxygen (group1), 17 patients (22%) were treated with nasal high-flow, CPAP, non-invasive ventilation, or a combination thereof (group 2) and 8 patients (10%) were intubated (group 3). The Horovitz index was 216±8 for group 1, 157±13 for group 2, and 106±15 for group 3. Oxygen content was 14.5±2.5, 13.4±1.9, and 11.6±2.6 mL·dL−1 for the three respective groups. Overall mortality was 7.7%, the mortality of intubated patients was 50%. 93% of patients could be discharged on room air.

Conclusion Permissive hypoxemia where decisions for the level of respiratory therapy were based on the clinical presentation and oxygen content resulted in low intubation rates, low overall mortality, and a low number of patients who require oxygen after discharge.

Introduction

Although COVID-19 is asymptomatic to mild in about 80% of cases, about 15% of patients show a severe and about 5% a critical course, which is usually based on lung involvement with respiratory failure [1]. The first therapeutic recommendations therefore addressed hypoxemia in particular with the aim of keeping oxygen saturation above at least 90% [2]. Some authors even advise caution against the use of high-flow oxygen administration (NHF) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in acute hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency in the context of COVID-19 and call for early intubation [3], and some researchers even recommend intubation and invasive ventilation already if the Horovitz index [4] is 200 or lower [5]. In general, hypoxemia is an accepted indication for intubation in Covid 19 patients [6–8]. The work of Raaof et al. provides a good overview about the respiratory support recommendations of the different countries and societies in the context of Covid 19 disease [9]. The prognosis of invasively ventilated Covid 19 patients however is poor and mortality ranges somewhere around 50% and higher, especially in older patients [10–12]. The fact that there is a large discrepancy between oxygen saturation and the extent of dyspnoea has given rise to the term “happy hypoxemia” [13] in Covid 19 patients. The pathophysiological mechanisms of this phenomenon are being discussed currently [13–17] as well as the impact of happy hypoxemia on respiratory management [14, 18]. A recent Cochrane review did not find evidence, that higher oxygen targets benefit patients with respiratory failure [19]. Hypoxemia can either be caused by intrapulmonary shunting or ventilation-perfusion mismatch which in Covid 19 is mainly caused by diffusion impairment. Only the latter is responsive to supplemental oxygen [20]. Dyspnoea on the other hand poorly correlates to hypoxemia [21]. In the presence of inflammatory diseases (such as Sars-Cov-2 infections), hypoxemia is frequently being caused by other mechanisms such as stimulation of irritant, stretch, and J receptors [22] or activation of respiratory muscles [23]. Focusing on tissue hypoxia oxygen delivery (DO2), determined by oxygen content (CaO2) and cardiac output (CO) is crucial. Critical values for CaO2 with signs of anaerobic metabolism occur in animal models at levels below 9 mLO2·dL−1 blood, which corresponds to an oxygen saturation of approximately 50% at normal haemoglobin levels and normal cardiac output [24]. Experiments in healthy humans have shown, that the critical level for oxygen content is lower than 6.6 (mL·dL−1) [25]. In particular lung tissue is vulnerable to oxygen concentrations of more than 21% and it is well known that oxygen per se is toxic if given in high concentrations an can cause ARDS in animal models [26].This leads to the question, if a higher tolerance of hypoxemia and a preferred use of non-invasive respiratory support instead of intubation and decision making based on the clinical presentation as previously suggested should be preferred [18] and can improve outcome in Covid 19 patients. Based on these considerations we analysed the data of all hypoxemic Covid 19 patients in two hospitals that had previously agreed on such a protocol for the treatment of respiratory failure in COVID-pneumonia.

Method

Treatment protocol

At the beginning of the pandemic, we have developed a predefined protocol for COVID-19 therapy in our hospitals. For the treatment of respiratory insufficiency, we have defined a strategy that provides invasive ventilation only when other measures have failed to stabilise the patient and intubation appears to be vital. The primary goal is to maintain the patient's spontaneous breathing for as long as possible. Positioning techniques such as prone or lateral position are to be used at each therapy stage - even under room air, oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation. Furthermore, we follow the principle of Hippocrates “primum non nocere” and have excluded the use of experimental procedures such as the use of hydroxchloroquine, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Tocilizumab or Remdesivir. Patients received a pneumococcal active antibiotic (ampicillin /sulbactam) in combination with a macrolide as well as prophylactic doses of heparin. Whenever possible patients were mobilised as early as possible.

The two participating pulmonary facilities (Kloster Grafschaft, facility 1 and Bethanien Moers, facility 2) agreed on the following protocol:

Respiratory support should be given in the following escalating sequence (fig. 1).

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Escalation sequence (CPAP=continuous positive airway pressure).

Escalation to the next level was made if the patients clinical work of breathing required the next level of support or the oxygen content was determined to be below 9 mL·dL−1. Hypoxemia per se was not an indication to escalate (permissive hypoxemia).

Inclusion criteria

Patients had to be primarily admitted to one of the investigational sites. Patients who were transferred from other hospitals with prior treatment (e.g. who were already intubated) were excluded.

Patients had to be Sars-CoV-2 PCR positive and had to have infiltrates on conventional chest X-ray or CT scan. Only patients with an oxygen saturation (SaO2) of less than 93% were included into the analysis. All patients were treated in an intermediate care or intensive care setting with continuous monitoring of oxygen saturation and heart rate by pulse oximetry. Patients were seen at least daily by a senior physician and laboratory tests were done at least every other day. Respiratory therapists were readily available to deliver respiratory support.

Data were retrospectively collected by chart review and transferred into a concerted Excel database at the respective site.

The responsible ethics commission approved the retrospective analysis (AEKWL 2020-897-f-S)

Statistics

Continuous variables are presented as means (±sd), and categorical variables as numbers and frequency (percentages). All data was transferred to SPSS (version 27, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) for further analysis. Multiple comparison of continuous variables was performed by means of ANOVA. For post-hoc analysis we used a t-test with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. A p of <0,05 was used as the significance threshold. Missing data was handled by pairwise deletion.

Results

We identified a total of 78 patients who met the inclusion criteria (26 from facility 1 and 52 from facility 2). Mean hospital length of stay was 14.5±13.5 days. Basic demographic data and pre-existing comorbidities are shown in table 1:

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Basic demographic data and pre-existing comorbidities (sd=standard deviation)

On admission 87.2% of the patients experienced dyspnoea. Anosmia was present in 30.8% of patients and 84.6% reported fatigue. Bilateral infiltrates on chest x-ray or CT scan were present in 97.5% of patients, only 2.5% had unilateral infiltrates. Overall admission SaO2 was 92±5.8%, the lowest reported oxygen saturation during the hospital course was 84.4±6.5%.

For further analysis we grouped patients according to the maximal respiratory treatment as shown in figure 1. This group distribution is shown in figure 2. The lowest reported oxygen saturation within these groups is shown in figure 3. The lowest reported Horovitz index is shown in figure 4. The lowest measured oxygen content is shown in figure 5.

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Distribution of the highest level of respiratory support that was delivered to the patient (NHF=nasal high-flow, CPAP=continuous positive airway pressure, NIV=non-invasive ventilation).

FIGURE 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3

SaO2 Nadir of the respective treatment groups (NHF=nasal high-flow, CPAP=continuous positive airway pressure, NIV=non-invasive ventilation).

FIGURE 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 4

Lowest reported Horovitz index of the respective treatment groups (NHF=nasal high-flow, CPAP=continuous positive airway pressure, NIV=non-invasive ventilation).

FIGURE 5
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 5

Lowes measured oxygen content of the respective treatment groups (NHF=nasal high-flow, CPAP=continuous positive airway pressure, NIV=non-invasive ventilation).

Laboratory values according to maximal treatment is shown in table 2:

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Demographic, physiological and laboratory data according to treatment groups

All patients received beta-lactam antibiotics, 97.4% of patients received an additional macrolide. Systemic anticoagulation was given in 88.5% of patients. Since our data were collected before data from the Recovery trial were published [27], dexamethasone was not given as the standard of care. Outcome, respectively respiratory treatment on discharge, is shown in figure 6. The overall mortality was 7.7%, the mortality rate of intubated patients was 50%. The two patients who died on oxygen treatment were 86 and 96 years of age and had declared to refuse any form of respiratory support beyond oxygen administration in their living will. Reasons for intubation in eight patients were septic shock on admission in one patient, cardiac arrest due to AV-block 3 in one patient and NIV failure according to our protocol in six patients.

FIGURE 6
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 6

Outcome / respiratory support at discharge according to the maximal respiratory support received (NHF=nasal high-flow, CPAP=continuous positive airway pressure, NIV=non-invasive ventilation).

Discussion

Our escalation protocol of respiratory support measures that was based on the clinical presentation and oxygen content rather than on markers of oxygenation or the Horovitz index resulted in an intubation rate of only 10.3% and an overall mortality of 7.7%. Our mortality rate of 50% in intubated patients is comparable to previous published data [10–12]. The overall mortality of patients hospitalised for Sars-CoV-2 infections in Germany is 22% [11] and is thus much higher than in our study in which only hypoxemic patients were included. Raaof et al. has already pointed out the various therapeutic approaches of different countries and societies with regard to the treatment of respiratory insufficiency. Randomised trials on this issue are unlikely to be conducted during the current pandemic. Thus, comparisons of different treatment strategies of different cohorts within the same health care system can be helpful to judge on treatment efficiency. Roedl and co-workers reported retrospective data on a large cohort in the city of Hamburg(26). They reported, that 167 (75%) of ICU patients received invasive mechanical ventilation within a median of 1 day after admission while NHF or NIV was only used in 18% of patients prior to intubation with high failure rates. In addition, PO2 levels were higher (70 mmHg in survivors and 64 mmHg in non-survivors of mechanical ventilation) compared to our cohort (see table 2) indicating, that the decision to intubate was probably done more progressively. ICU survival rates were 44% in ventilated and 35% in not ventilated patients and thus were much higher than the rate we reported (7.7%). Burns and co-workers found an improved survival when NIV was given to frail patients who were not deemed appropriate for invasive mechanical ventilation and proposed a general integrated escalation strategy of non-invasive respiratory therapies to avoid intubation [29]. Patel et al. worked with a respiratory escalation scheme in moderate to severe hypoxemic Covid 19 patients, that was comparable to ours [30]. Their decision to intubate was also based on clinical presentation but the oxygen saturation goal was 94% and the ratio of intubated patients was 36%. Our protocol did not call for an oxygen saturation goal, which might explain the lower intubation rate of 10.3%. Brusasco and co-workers reported a CPAP success rate of 83% in Covid 19 patients with a mean PaO2 / FiO2 ratio of 119. Oranger et al. decreased the combined outcome of intubation and/or death significantly from 57% down to 23% after a protocol of routine CPAP use was introduced to hypoxemic Covid 19 patients [31]. The patient's well tolerance of hypoxemia has led to the term “happy hypoxemia” [13]. Hypoxemia hardly causes dyspnoea [21], and dyspnoea is more related to hypercapnia, acidosis [32] or activation of the respiratory muscles [23]. Hypoxemia as measured by arterial blood gas analysis or pulse oximetry does not equal tissue hypoxia.

Oxygen delivery to the cells is being determined by the oxygen content (1.34×haemoglobin (mg·dL−1)×oxygen saturation (%) / 100+0.0031×partial pressure of oxygen (mmHg)) times the cardiac output. The majority of oxygen (98%) is bound to haemoglobin (bold printed part of the equation) while the amount of freely dissolved oxygen (underlined part of the equation) is negligible. Lowering the saturation by×% has the same effect as lowering the haemoglobin by×%. So why we are more concerned about severe hypoxemia than about severe anaemia? The latter was not present in our patients as shown in table 2 which might in part explain the good tolerance of hypoxemia.

Elevated body temperature (fever) as seen in our patients shifts the oxygen dissociation curve to the right which facilitates the release of oxygen in the periphery [33]. A lack of oxygen on the cellular level does not occur until the oxygen delivery has decreased to 25% of the normal value [34]. In animal models anaerobic metabolism occurred if the oxygen content fell below 9 mL·dL−1 [24]. Lieberman and co-workers had shown, that lowering the oxygen content to as low as 6.6 mL·dL−1 did not cause signs of anaerobic metabolism in healthy volunteers [25]. Our threshold of 9 mL·dL−1 appeared to be safe in our patient cohort.

Based on these considerations, the clinical importance of hypoxemia should not be overestimated especially since invasive ventilation might correct hypoxemia short term but may inflict ventilator associated lung injury [35] or oxygen induced ARDS [26]. A more restrictive use of invasive mechanical ventilation and oxygen as suggested recently [18], might be advised. Our data suggest that such a strategy is more beneficial for Covid 19 patients.

We observed the typical laboratory abnormalities as seen in previous investigations [30, 36].

Previous investigations have shown, that there is great potential to recover from Covid 19 with very little sequelae [37]. It should be particularly emphasised that the majority (93%) of the patients who survived could be discharged without oxygen. Only four patients treated with NHF/CPCP/NIV required oxygen on discharge and one patient who was intubated required tracheostomy and continued on invasive ventilation. Our data suggest that the lungs recover well from Covid 19 if they are denied the stress of invasive ventilation and over-oxygenation.

Conclusion

A respiratory support escalation scheme based on clinical appearance and oxygen content rather than on the level of oxygenation (permissive hypoxemia) is feasible and has a favourable outcome in our retrospective analysis. Hypoxemia per se should not be an indication for invasive mechanical ventilation. The vast majority of patients recover well from Covid 19 if such a strategy is pursued.

Support statement: We received no external funding

Footnotes

  • Data availability: Data will be shared upon request

  • Conflict of interest: nothing to disclose

  • Conflict of interest: nothing to disclose

  • Conflict of interest: nothing to disclose

  • Conflict of interest: nothing to disclose

  • Received January 12, 2021.
  • ©The authors 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wu Z,
    2. McGoogan JM
    . Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA 2020; 323: 1239–1242. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2648
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (nCoV) infection is suspected. WHO, 2020.
  3. ↵
    1. Cheung JCH,
    2. Ho LT,
    3. Cheng JV, et al.
    Staff safety during emergency airway management for COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: e19. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30084-9
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Luterman A,
    2. Horovitz JH,
    3. Carrico CJ, et al.
    Withdrawal from positive end-expiratory pressure. Surgery 1978; 83: 328–332.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Kluge S,
    2. Janssens U,
    3. Welte T, et al.
    German recommendations for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed 2020; 115: 111–114. doi:10.1007/s00063-020-00689-w
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Bhatraju PK,
    2. Ghassemieh BJ,
    3. Nichols M, et al.
    Covid-19 in Critically Ill Patients in the Seattle Region — Case Series. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 2012–2022. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2004500
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Grasselli G,
    2. Zangrillo A,
    3. Zanella A, et al.
    Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes of 1591 Patients Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy. JAMA 2020; 323: 1574–1581. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.5394
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Yang X,
    2. Yu Y,
    3. Xu J, et al.
    Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 475–481. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Raoof S,
    2. Nava S,
    3. Carpati C, et al.
    High-Flow, Noninvasive Ventilation and Awake (Nonintubation) Proning in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 With Respiratory Failure. Chest 2020; 158: 1992–2002. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.013
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Amit M,
    2. Sorkin A,
    3. Chen J, et al.
    Clinical Course and Outcomes of Severe Covid-19: A National Scale Study. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 2282. doi:10.3390/jcm9072282
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Karagiannidis C,
    2. Mostert C,
    3. Hentschker C, et al.
    Case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of 10 021 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 920 German hospitals: an observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 853–862. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30316-7
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Lim ZJ,
    2. Subramaniam A,
    3. Reddy MP, et al.
    Case Fatality Rates for COVID-19 Patients Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 203.
  12. ↵
    1. Couzin-Frankel J
    . The mystery of the pandemic's ‘happy hypoxia. Science 2020; 368: 455–456. doi:10.1126/science.368.6490.455
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Dhont S,
    2. Derom E,
    3. Van Braeckel E, et al.
    The pathophysiology of ‘happy’ hypoxemia in COVID-19. Respir Res 2020; 21: 198. doi:10.1186/s12931-020-01462-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tobin MJ,
    2. Jubran A,
    3. Laghi F
    . Misconceptions of pathophysiology of happy hypoxemia and implications for management of COVID-19. Respir Res 2020; 21: 249. doi:10.1186/s12931-020-01520-y
    OpenUrl
    1. Tobin MJ,
    2. Laghi F,
    3. Jubran A
    . Reply to Jounieaux et al. : On Happy Hypoxia and on Sadly Ignored “Acute Vascular Distress Syndrome” in Patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 1599–1600. doi:10.1164/rccm.202007-2940LE
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Tobin MJ,
    2. Laghi F,
    3. Jubran A
    . Why COVID-19 silent hypoxemia is baffling to physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 356–360. doi:10.1164/rccm.202006-2157CP
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Tobin MJ
    . Basing respiratory management of COVID-19 on physiological principles. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 201: 1319–1320. doi:10.1164/rccm.202004-1076ED
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Cumpstey AF,
    2. Oldman AH,
    3. Smith AF, et al.
    Oxygen targets in the intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 9: CD013708.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Tobin MJ,
    2. Laghi F,
    3. Jubran A
    . Ventilatory failure, ventilator support, and ventilator weaning. Compr Physiol 2012; 2: 2871–2921.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Dellweg D,
    2. Schmitten J,
    3. Kerl J, et al.
    Impact of hypobaric flight simulation on walking distance and oxygenation in COPD patients. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2019; 260: 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.resp.2018.11.010
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Tobin MJ
    . Principles and practice of intensive care monitoring. Mcgraw-Hill Professional, 1998.
  20. ↵
    1. Weese-Mayer DE,
    2. Berry-Kravis EM,
    3. Ceccherini I, et al.
    An official ATS clinical policy statement: Congenital central hypoventilation syndrome - Genetic basis, diagnosis, and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 181: 626–644. doi:10.1164/rccm.200807-1069ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Mark AH,
    2. Van Der Hoeven BM,
    3. Maertzdorf WJ, et al.
    Mixed venous oxygen saturation and biochemical parameters of hypoxia during progressive hypoxemia in 10- to 14-day-old piglets. Pediatr Res 1997; 42: 878–884. doi:10.1203/00006450-199712000-00026
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Lieberman JA,
    2. Weiskopf RB,
    3. Kelley SD, et al.
    Critical oxygen delivery in conscious humans is less than 7.3 ml O2·kg−1·min−1. Anesthesiology 2000; 92: 407–413. doi:10.1097/00000542-200002000-00022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Santos R DL,
    2. Seidenfeld JJ,
    3. Anzueto A, et al.
    One hundred percent oxygen lung injury in adult baboons. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987; 136: 657–661. doi:10.1164/ajrccm/136.3.657
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. RECOVERY Collaborative Group
    . Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 — Preliminary Report. N Engl J Med 2020.
    1. Roedl K,
    2. Jarczak D,
    3. Thasler L, et al.
    Mechanical ventilation and mortality among 223 critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A multicentric study in Germany. Aust Crit Care 2020.
  25. ↵
    1. Burns GP,
    2. Lane ND,
    3. Tedd HM, et al.
    Improved survival following ward-based non-invasive pressure support for severe hypoxia in a cohort of frail patients with COVID-19: Retrospective analysis from a UK teaching hospital. BMJ Open Respir Res 2020; 7: e000621. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000621
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Patel M,
    2. Gangemi A,
    3. Marron R, et al.
    Retrospective analysis of high flow nasal therapy in COVID-19-related moderate-to-severe hypoxaemic respiratory failure. BMJ Open Respir Res 2020; 7: e000650.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Oranger M,
    2. Gonzalez-Bermejo J,
    3. Dacosta-Noble P, et al.
    Continuous positive airway pressure to avoid intubation in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: A two-period retrospective case-control study. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2001692. doi:10.1183/13993003.01692-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Parshall MB,
    2. Schwartzstein RM,
    3. Adams L, et al.
    An official American thoracic society statement: Update on the mechanisms, assessment, and management of dyspnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 185: 435–452. doi:10.1164/rccm.201111-2042ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Barcroft J,
    2. King WOR
    . The effect of temperature on the dissociation curve of blood. J Physiol 1909; 39: 374–384. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1909.sp001345
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Ronco JJ,
    2. Fenwick JC,
    3. Tweeddale MG, et al.
    Identification of the Critical Oxygen Delivery for Anaerobic Metabolism in Critically Ill Septic and Nonseptic Humans. JAMA 1993; 270: 1724–1730. doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03510140084034
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Finfer SR,
    2. Vincent J-L,
    3. Slutsky AS, et al.
    Critical Care Medicine Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2126. doi:10.1056/NEJMe1304035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Wang D,
    2. Hu B,
    3. Hu C, et al.
    Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients with 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020; 323: 1061–1069. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1585
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Sung HK,
    2. Kim JY,
    3. Heo J, et al.
    Clinical course and outcomes of 3,060 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Korea, January-May 2020. J Korean Med Sci 2020; 35: e280. doi:10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e280
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 9 Issue 2 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 9 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Conservative management of Covid 19 associated hypoxemia
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Conservative management of Covid 19 associated hypoxemia
Thomas Voshaar, Patrick Stais, Dieter Köhler, Dominic Dellweg
ERJ Open Research Jan 2021, 00026-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00026-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Conservative management of Covid 19 associated hypoxemia
Thomas Voshaar, Patrick Stais, Dieter Köhler, Dominic Dellweg
ERJ Open Research Jan 2021, 00026-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00026-2021
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory infections and tuberculosis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Microbial and host immune factors as drivers of COPD
  • Asymmetry in acute exacerbation of IPF
  • Multiple large clusters of tuberculosis in London
Show more Original article

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society