Wendel Garcia, Pedro DavidAguirre Bermeo, HernánBuehler, Philipp KAlfaro Farias, MarioYuen, BerndDavid, SaschaTschoellitsch, ThomasWengenmayer, TobiasKorsos, AnitaFogagnolo, AlbertoKleger, Gian RetoWu, Madalena AColombo, RicardoTurrini, FabrizioPotalivo, AntonellaRezoagli, EmanueleRodríguez García, RaquelCastro Rebollo, PedroLander Azcona, ArantxaMartín Delgado, María CruzLozano Gómez, HerminiaEnsner, RolfMichot, Marc PGehring, NadineSchott, PeterSiegemund, MartinMerki, LukasWiegand, JanJeitziner, Marie MLaube, MarcusSalomon, PetraHillgaertner, FrankDullenkopf, AlexanderKsouri, HatemCereghetti, SaraGrazioli, SergeBürkle, ChristianMarrel, JulienFleisch, IsabellePerez, Marie-Helene2022-06-162022-06-162021-05-251364-8535https://hdl.handle.net/2445/186729Background: Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is wide‑ spread. While the risks and benefts of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefts of diferent respiratory sup‑ port strategies, employed in intensive care units during the frst months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. Methods: Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclas‑ sifed into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-fow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure12 p.application/pdfengcc-by (c) Wendel Garcia, Pedro David et al., 2021https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/COVID-19Malalts en estat críticVellesaUnitats de cures intensivesCOVID-19Critically illOld ageIntensive care unitsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article7188982022-06-16info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess34034782