Francesco De Lazzaro

(1) Background: the aim of this study was to create a score to predict the incidence of CPAP failure in COVID-19 patients early. (2) Methods: in this retrospective observational study, we included all consecutive adult patients admitted between February and April 2021. The main outcome was the failure of CPAP support (intubation or death). (3) Results: two-hundred and sixty-three COVID-19 patients were managed with CPAP. The population was divided in short-CPAP (CPAP days ≤ 10; 72.6%) and long-CPAP (>10; 27.4%) groups. After balancing the entire population using a stabilized IPTW method, we applied a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify the risk factors for CPAP failure. We used the identified covariates to create a mathematical model, the CPAP Failure Score (CPAP-FS). The multivariable logistic regression analysis identified four variables: SpO₂ (OR = 0.86; p-value = 0.001), P/F ratio (OR = 0.99; p-value = 0.008), the Call Score (OR = 1.44; p-value = 0.02), and a pre-existing chronic lung disease (OR = 3.08; p-value = 0.057). The beta-coefficients obtained were used to develop the CPAP-FS, whose diagnostic ability outperformed other relevant COVID-19-related parameters (AUC = 0.87; p-value < 0.0001). We validated the CPAP-FS using a 10-fold internal cross-validation method which confirmed the observed results (AUCs 0.76–0.80; p-values < 0.0001). (4) Conclusions: the CPAP-FS can early identify COVID-19 patients who are at risk of CPAP failure.

The best mode of delivering enteral nutrition (EN) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is still debated: several consensus guidelines (American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition [ASPEN] and the European Society for Parental and Enteral Nutrition [ESPEN]) suggest that EN in ICU should be preferably delivered continuously rather intermittently, but some authors highlight that the first is unphysiological. The aim of this systematic review (SR) is to summarize available clinical evidence related to safety and efficacy of continuous EN (C‐EN) or intermittent EN (I‐EN) in patients in the ICU, in relation to appropriated supply on nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms or tolerance, and risks on respiratory tract infections. A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar was performed comparing C‐EN vs I‐EN, and 4196 published studies were screened. Nineteen studies were selected for this SR reporting types of ICU, nutrition protocols, and study period. Effects of C‐EN vs I‐EN were presented according to the impact on nutrition status, digestive tract, and respiratory tract. The contrasting results confirmed that the optimal delivering mode of EN remains controversial. Future studies dedicated to identifying the benefits and limitations of C‐EN or I‐EN should be realized.