Summary
Objective To investigate the benefit of ventilation therapy among various patient groups with COVID-19 admitted to hospitals, based on the real-world data of hospitalized adult patients.
Methods Data used in the longitudinal study included 599,340 records of hospitalized patients. All participants were categorized based on demographics and their date of hospitalization. Two models were used in this study: firstly, participants were assessed by their probability of receiving ventilation therapy during hospitalization using mixed-effects logistic regression. Secondly, the clinical benefit of receiving ventilation therapy among various patient groups was quantified while considering the probability of receiving ventilation therapy during hospital admission, as estimated in the first model.
Findings Among participants, 60,113 (10.0%) received ventilation therapy, 85,158 (14.2%) passed away due to COVID-19, and 514,182 (85.8%) recovered. Among all groups with sufficient data for analysis, patients aged 40-64 years who had chronic respiratory diseases (CRD) and malignancy benefitted the most from ventilation therapy; followed by patients aged 65+ years who had malignancy, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes; and patients aged 18-39 years who had malignancy. Patients aged 65+ who had CRD and cardiovascular disease gained the least benefit from ventilation therapy.
Conclusion This study promotes a new aspect of treating patients for ventilators: it could be suggested that rather than focusing on the scarcity of ventilators, guidelines focus on decision-making algorithms to also take the usefulness of the intervention into account, whose beneficial effect is dependent on the selection of the right time in the right patient.
Funding This work was supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO) (Grant No. 202693061). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
What was already known Research has been ongoing to investigate the main principles for allocating scarce medical resources during pandemics. Medical experts working at the COVID-19 care units interact with patients of different socioeconomic, clinical, paraclinical, and overall health statuses. While physicians should not be faced with situations where they would be obliged to decide which patient to treat due to the risk of human error as well as the double-burden of life-long emotional toll, the pandemic has increased the likelihood of such dilemmas, especially in settings with limited resources. Serious discussions on the ethical considerations of ventilator allocation were also raised during the pandemic. Utility (maximizing benefits) and equity (distributive justice) were two concerns raised in decision making in such dilemma which has also been considered to be “the toughest triage”.
What new knowledge the manuscript contributes This longitudinal study provides new insights on optimizing the strategies for ventilation therapy prioritization among patients with COVID-19, based on the real-world data of nearly 600,000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. So far, there has been focus on how to prioritize patients with COVID-19 for ventilation therapy. Nevertheless, there has not been much evidence on how much patients of different age groups with various underlying conditions actually benefitted from ventilation therapy based on real-world data. The results of this study could have a significant message: should the prioritization guidelines for ventilators allocation take no notice of the real-world data, patients might be deprived of ventilation therapy, who could benefit the most from it. This would pave the way to capture clearer picture in the possible future pandemics.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the WHO EMRO Office (EMRO) (Grant No. 202693061). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The ethics committee of Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, approved this study under the reference number IR.TUMS.EMRI.REC.1400.034
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵† These authors share first-authorship
Data Availability
De-identified, individual participant data will be made available upon requests directed to the corresponding author; after the approval of a proposal, data can be shared through a secure online platform.
