Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39166698›Full record

ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024

Inhaled nitric oxide in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.

Lucas Eduardo Benthien Santos, Camila Campos Grisa Padovese, Isabela Belarmino Oliveira de Castro, Rodrigo Carneiro Franco, Ana Paula Pires Bolsoni Okuda, Mariana Resende Bustamante, Luciana Gioli-Pereira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lucas Eduardo Benthien SantosHospital Municipal da Vila Santa Catarina Dr. Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6361-6089
Camila Campos Grisa PadoveseHospital Municipal da Vila Santa Catarina Dr. Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-3516-8185
Isabela Belarmino Oliveira de CastroHospital Municipal da Vila Santa Catarina Dr. Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0467-5390
Rodrigo Carneiro FrancoHospital Municipal da Vila Santa Catarina Dr. Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-1754-0676
Ana Paula Pires Bolsoni OkudaHospital Municipal da Vila Santa Catarina Dr. Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-5885-3439
Mariana Resende BustamanteHospital Municipal da Vila Santa Catarina Dr. Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4411-2792
Luciana Gioli-PereiraHospital Municipal da Vila Santa Catarina Dr. Gilson de Cássia Marques de Carvalho; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4682-8095

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn this study, we present the findings from a cohort of patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome who underwent standard therapy, including prone positioning, with or without adjunctive inhalation of nitric oxide. Our investigation sought to determine whether inhaled nitric oxide administration yielded clinical enhancement in this population. Remarkably, nitric oxide administration elevated the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, which is indicative of improved oxygenation. Despite this improvement, discernible mortality benefits did not emerge in association with the inhaled nitric oxide treatment. To evaluate the responsiveness of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients to inhaled nitric oxide as part of their standard therapy.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated between March 2020 and May 2021. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 were subsequently categorized into two groups based on inhaled nitric oxide use throughout their stay in the intensive care unit. The primary endpoints were overall mortality and improvement in oxygenation parameters 6 hours after inhaled nitric oxide use.

resultsA total of 481 patients admitted to the intensive care unit due to COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome were screened, 105 of which were included. Among the 105 patients, inhaled nitric oxide therapy was used in 33 patients, will 72 did not undergo inhaled nitric oxide therapy. No significant difference in mortality was observed between the groups (67% for the treatment and 82% for the no-treatment groups respectively, p=0.173). Among the patients who used inhaled nitric oxide, 17 (51%) were considered responsive to therapy. There was no significant difference in the length of stay in the intensive care unit (p=0.324) or total hospitalization time (p=0.344).

conclusionInhaled nitric oxide rescue therapy improved oxygenation in patients with COVID-19 with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome but did not affect mortality.

Indexed as

COVID-19Nitric OxideRespiratory Distress SyndromeAdministration, InhalationAdultAgedCOVID-19 Drug TreatmentFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Severity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeNitric Oxide

Identifiers

PMID39166698
PMCPMC11319026

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.