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
Summary
Evaluation of the clinical impact of noninvasive respiratory support vs conventional oxygen therapy in acute respiratory failure with SpO2/FiO2 280–400
Isabel Gil Rosa1, Juan Javier García Fernández2, Sonia Galicia Puyol3, Juan José Guerras Conesa4, José Andrés Sánchez Nicolás5, César Cinesi Gómez5
Affiliation of the authors
1Servicio de Urgencias y Emergencias Médicas 061, Gerencia 061, Murcia, Spain. 2Centro de Salud de San Diego, Murcia, Spain. 3Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital General Los Arcos del Mar Menor, Murcia, Spain. 4Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital Rafael Méndez, Murcia, Spain. 5Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofía, Murcia, Spain.
DOI
Quote
Gil Rosa I, García Fernández JJ, Galicia Puyol S, Guerras Conesa JJ, Sánchez Nicolás JA, Cinesi Gómez C. Evaluation of the clinical impact of noninvasive respiratory support vs conventional oxygen therapy in acute respiratory failure with SpO2/FiO2 280–400. Rev Esp Urg Emerg. 2025;4:162–9
Summary
INTRODUCTION. The objective of this study was to evaluate filed initial respiratory support (conventional oxygen therapy vs noninvasive respiratory support) in patients with SpO2/FiO2 between 280 and 400.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with acute respiratory failure and SpO2/FiO2 between 280 and 400 who entered the emergency respiratory circuit created during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted at Hospital General Universitario Reina Sofía (Murcia, Spain) from March 2020 through June 2021.
RESULTS. A total of 348 (4.31%) out f 8,074 patients assessed were ultimately included. The failure rate of initial therapy was 24.1% (12.5% in the noninvasive respiratory support group and 12.5% in the conventional oxygen therapy group; OR, 0.383; 95%CI, 0.181–0.808; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS. Early use of noninvasive respiratory support in patients with acute respiratory failure and SpO2/FiO2 between 280 and 400 may reduce the risk of initial respiratory support failure, particularly in patients with acute heart failure.
More articles by the authors
