The Comparative Impact of Liberal Versus Conservative Oxygenation in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study.

Abstract

Objectives Whether a higher or lower partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) could impact outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a matter of debate. So, we planned this retrospective analysis to determine if a higher or lower partial pressure of oxygen in blood had any effect on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Material and method The records of COVID-19 patients from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2022 were scanned. Patients were sub-grouped into two groups based on the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) values on arterial blood gas (ABG), i.e., high PaO2group,PaO2 value of 80-100 mm Hg, and low PaO2group,PaO2 value of 60-80 mm Hg for the first 48 hours after the initiation of oxygenation and/or mechanical ventilation. The two groups were compared in terms of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to the fraction of inspiratory oxygen (FiO2) concentration (P/F ratio), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at presentation and after 48 hours, and clinical outcomes, including mortality, time of mortality, extubation, acute kidney injury (AKI), and change in Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Results SOFA score was significantly higher in the low PaO2 group as compared to the high PaO2 group both at baseline (4.59 {1.79} versus 5.51 {1.15}; p-value: 0.005) and at 48 hours (3.06 {1.39} versus 5.11 {2.13}; p-value: 0.007). However, the change in SOFA score over 48 hours did not achieve statistical significance (-1.000 {0.97} versus 0.53 {2.34}; p-value: 0.257). Out of a total of 37 patients, 21 patients died in the high PaO2 group, while 18 patients died in the low PaO2 group. Conclusion Our study highlights that targeting either low or high arterial oxygen content while considering oxygen therapy for COVID-19 patients did not significantly alter the outcomes.