Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen vs Standard Oxygen Therapy on Mortality in Patients With Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The SOHO-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial

[Correlation between comorbidities and thoracic CT manifestations of COVID-19 pneumonia]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pulmonary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is described using standardized computed tomography (CT) morphologic criteria. In this study, we investigated possible associations between thoracic CT manifestations in COVID-19 pneumonia and typical comorbidities, as well as clinical course.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical data and pulmonary imaging of 61 patients with positive PCR test. Pulmonary changes were categorized and reviewed for associations with pre-existing comorbidities and clinical course.

RESULTS

Compared to patients with atypical infiltrate patterns (2/19, 10.5%), 25 patients with typical infiltrate patterns (25/42, 59.5%) were significantly more likely to receive intensive care (p<0.001). In addition, patients with typical infiltrate patterns were more likely to receive non-invasive ventilation (12/42, 28.6%, p=0.040) and high-flow therapy (8/42, 19%, p=0.041) compared to patients with atypical infiltrate patterns. Mortality was also higher in patients with typical infiltrate patterns, with 15 patients (15/42, 35.7%) dying during follow-up compared to only 1 patient with atypical infiltrate pattern (1/19, 10.5%, p=0.012). No significant association between specific comorbidities and the resulting infiltrate pattern could be demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a typical COVID-19 infiltrate pattern are more likely to receive intensive care and show higher mortality rates. Further analysis with larger patient collectives is needed to identify specific risk factors for typical COVID-19 pneumonia.

When to intubate in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure? Options and opportunities for evidence-informed decision making in the intensive care unit

The optimal timing of intubation in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is uncertain and became a point of controversy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Invasive mechanical ventilation is a potentially life-saving intervention but carries substantial risks, including injury to the lungs and diaphragm, pneumonia, intensive care unit-acquired muscle weakness, and haemodynamic impairment. In deciding when to intubate, clinicians must balance premature exposure to the risks of ventilation with the potential harms of unassisted breathing, including disease progression and worsening multiorgan failure. Currently, the optimal timing of intubation is unclear. In this Personal View, we examine a range of parameters that could serve as triggers to initiate invasive mechanical ventilation. The utility of a parameter (eg, the ratio of arterial oxygen tension to fraction of inspired oxygen) to predict the likelihood of a patient undergoing intubation does not necessarily mean that basing the timing of intubation on that parameter will improve therapeutic outcomes. We examine options for clinical investigation to make progress on establishing the optimal timing of intubation.

Dyspnea is severe and associated with a higher intubation rate in de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

Dyspnea is a key symptom of de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This study explores dyspnea and its association with intubation and mortality in this population.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Dyspnea was quantified by a visual analog scale (dyspnea-VAS) from zero to 100 mm. Dyspnea was measured in 259 of the 310 patients included. Factors associated with intubation were assessed with a competing risks model taking into account ICU discharge. The Cox model was used to evaluate factors associated with 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

At baseline (randomization in the parent trial), median dyspnea-VAS was 46 (interquartile range, 16-65) mm and was ≥ 40 mm in 146 patients (56%). The intubation rate was 45%. Baseline variables independently associated with intubation were moderate (dyspnea-VAS 40-64 mm) and severe (dyspnea-VAS ≥ 65 mm) dyspnea at baseline (sHR 1.96 and 2.61, p = 0.023), systolic arterial pressure (sHR 2.56, p < 0.001), heart rate (sHR 1.94, p = 0.02) and PaO2/FiO2 (sHR 0.34, p = 0.028). 90-day mortality was 20%. The cumulative probability of survival was lower in patients with baseline dyspnea-VAS ≥ 40 mm (logrank test, p = 0.049). Variables independently associated with mortality were SAPS 2 ≥ 25 (p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe dyspnea at baseline (p = 0.073), PaO2/FiO2 (p = 0.118), and treatment arm (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients admitted to the ICU for de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, dyspnea is associated with a higher risk of intubation and with a higher mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier # NCT01320384.

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive methods of respiratory support, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), are potential strategies to prevent progression to requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to understand the utility of noninvasive respiratory support among a homogeneous cohort of patients with contemporary management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. We performed a network meta-analysis of studies evaluating the efficacy of NIV (including CPAP) and HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT), in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched in May 2023. Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used first to estimate all direct pairwise associations and the results from all studies were combined using frequentist network meta-analysis. Primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as discontinuation of HFNO, NIV, or COT despite progressive disease. Secondary outcome was mortality.

RESULTS

We included data from eight RCTs with 2302 patients, (756 [33%] assigned to COT, 371 [16%] to NIV, and 1175 [51%] to HFNO). The odds of treatment failure were similar for NIV (P=0.33) and HFNO (P=0.25), and both were similar to that for COT (reference category). The odds of mortality were similar for all three treatments (odds ratio for NIV vs COT: 1.06 [0.46-2.44] and HFNO vs COT: 0.97 [0.57-1.65]).

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and conventional oxygen therapy are comparable with regards to treatment failure and mortality in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023426495.

Lower vs Higher Oxygenation Target and Days Alive Without Life Support in COVID-19: The HOT-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial.

Objective

To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days.

Results

Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse events or in number of days alive and out of hospital.

Conclusion and Relevance

In adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg resulted in more days alive without life support in 90 days than targeting a Pao2 of 90 mm Hg.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Definition, Diagnosis, and Routine Management

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an acute inflammatory lung injury characterized by severe hypoxemic respiratory failure, bilateral opacities on chest imaging, and low lung compliance. ARDS is a heterogeneous syndrome that is the common end point of a wide variety of predisposing conditions, with complex pathophysiology and underlying mechanisms. Routine management of ARDS is centered on lung-protective ventilation strategies such as low tidal volume ventilation and targeting low airway pressures to avoid exacerbation of lung injury, as well as a conservative fluid management strategy.

Noninvasive respiratory support in the emergency department: Controversies and state-of-the-art recommendations

Acute respiratory failure is a common reason for emergency department visits and hospital admissions. Diverse underlying physiologic abnormalities lead to unique aspects about the most common causes of acute respiratory failure: acute decompensated heart failure, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and acute de novo hypoxemic respiratory failure. Noninvasive respiratory support strategies are increasingly used methods to support work of breathing and improve gas exchange abnormalities to improve outcomes relative to conventional oxygen therapy or invasive mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive respiratory support includes noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow, each with unique physiologic mechanisms. This paper will review the physiology of respiratory failure and noninvasive respiratory support modalities and offer data and guideline-driven recommendations in the context of key clinical controversies.

Challenges for a broad international implementation of the current severe community-acquired pneumonia guidelines

Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) remains one of the leading causes of admission to the intensive care unit, thus consuming a large share of resources and is associated with high mortality rates worldwide. The evidence generated by clinical studies in the last decade was translated into recommendations according to the first published guidelines focusing on severe community-acquired pneumonia. Despite the advances proposed by the present guidelines, several challenges preclude the prompt implementation of these diagnostic and therapeutic measures. The present article discusses the challenges for the broad implementation of the sCAP guidelines and proposes solutions when applicable.

Temporal trends of severity and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 after the emergence of variants of concern: A comparison of two waves

BACKGROUND

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants led to subsequent waves of COVID-19 worldwide. In many countries, the second wave of COVID-19 was marked by record deaths, raising the concern that variants associated with that wave might be more deadly. Our aim was to compare outcomes of critically-ill patients of the first two waves of COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort included critically-ill patients admitted between March-June 2020 and April-July 2021 in the largest academic hospital in Brazil, which has free-access universal health care system. We compared admission characteristics and hospital outcomes. The main outcome was 60-day survival and we built multivariable Cox model based on a conceptual causal diagram in the format of directed acyclic graph (DAG).

RESULTS

We included 1583 patients (1315 in the first and 268 in the second wave). Patients in the second wave were younger, had lower severity scores, used prone and non-invasive ventilatory support more often, and fewer patients required mechanical ventilation (70% vs 80%, p<0.001), vasopressors (60 vs 74%, p<0.001), and dialysis (22% vs 37%, p<0.001). Survival was higher in the second wave (HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.50-0.76). In the multivariable model, admission during the second wave, adjusted for age, SAPS3 and vaccination, was not associated with survival (aHR 0.85, 95%CI 0.65-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study, patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU in the second wave were younger and had better prognostic scores. Adjusted survival was similar in the two waves, contrasting with record number of hospitalizations, daily deaths and health system collapse seen across the country in the second wave. Our findings suggest that the combination of the burden of severe cases and factors such as resource allocation and health disparities may have had an impact in the excess mortality found in many countries in the second wave.

Prognosis of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 after failure of high-flow nasal cannula: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is an argument whether the delayed intubation aggravate the respiratory failure in Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to investigate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure before mechanical ventilation on clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included mechanically ventilated patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between February 2020 and December 2021 at Asan Medical Center. The patients were divided into HFNC failure (HFNC-F) and mechanical ventilation (MV) groups according to the use of HFNC before MV. The primary outcome of this study was to compare the worst values of ventilator parameters from day 1 to day 3 after mechanical ventilation between the two groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 158 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 were included in this study: 107 patients (67.7%) in the HFNC-F group and 51 (32.3%) in the MV group. The two groups had similar profiles of ventilator parameter from day 1 to day 3 after mechanical ventilation, except of dynamic compliance on day 3 (28.38 mL/cmH2O in MV vs. 30.67 mL/H2O in HFNC-F, p = 0.032). In addition, the HFNC-F group (5.6%) had a lower rate of ECMO at 28 days than the MV group (17.6%), even after adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.83; p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Among mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, HFNC failure before mechanical ventilation was not associated with deterioration of respiratory failure.

Acute Respiratory Failure From Early Pandemic COVID-19: Noninvasive Respiratory Support vs Mechanical Ventilation

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for initial respiratory support in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 is unclear, and the initial strategy may affect outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Which initial respiratory support strategy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support and admitted to a large health care network were eligible for inclusion. We compared patients treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation by facemask or high-flow nasal oxygen) with patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The primary outcome was time to in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included unweighted and weighted assessments of mortality, lengths of stay (ICU and hospital), and time to intubation.

RESULTS

Nearly one-half of the 2,354 patients (47%) who met inclusion criteria received IMV first, and 53% received initial NIRS. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 38% (37% for IMV and 39% for NIRS). Initial NIRS was associated with an increased hazard of death compared with initial IMV (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.94), but also an increased hazard of leaving the hospital sooner that waned with time (noninvasive support by time interaction: hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with COVID-19 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure initially treated with NIRS showed an increased hazard of in-hospital death.

Management and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted in a newly created ICU and an expert ICU, a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly increased the inflow of patients requiring intensive care units (ICU). French health institutions responded by a twofold capacity increase with temporary upgraded beds, supplemental beds in pre-existing ICUs, or newly created units (New-ICU). We aimed to compare outcomes according to admission in expert pre-existing ICUs or in New-ICU.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective observational study was conducted in two 20-bed expert ICUs of a University Hospital (Expert-ICU) and in one 16-bed New-ICU in a private clinic managed respectively by 3 and 2 physicians during daytime and by one physician during the night shift. All consecutive adult patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure admitted after centralized regional management by a dedicated crisis cell were included. The primary outcome was 180-day mortality. Propensity score matching and restricted cubic spline for predicted mortality over time were performed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 165 and 176 patients were enrolled in Expert-ICU and New-ICU respectively, 162 (98%) and 157 (89%) patients were analyzed. The unadjusted 180-day mortality was 30.8% in Expert-ICU and 28.7% in New-ICU, (log-rank test, p =  0.7). After propensity score matching, 123 pairs (76 and 78%) of patients were matched, with no significant difference in mortality (32% vs. 32%, OR 1.00 [0.89; 1.12], p = 1). Adjusted predicted mortality decreased over time (p < 0.01) in both Expert-ICU and New-ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

In COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, hospitalization in a new ICU was not associated with mortality at day 180.

Predicting invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID 19 patients: A validation study

INTRODUCTION

The decision to intubate and ventilate a patient is mainly clinical. Both delaying intubation (when needed) and unnecessarily invasively ventilating (when it can be avoided) are harmful. We recently developed an algorithm predicting respiratory failure and invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients. This is an internal validation study of this model, which also suggests a categorized "time-weighted" model.

METHODS

We used a dataset of COVID-19 patients who were admitted to Rabin Medical Center after the algorithm was developed. We evaluated model performance in predicting ventilation, regarding the actual endpoint of each patient. We further categorized each patient into one of four categories, based on the strength of the prediction of ventilation over time. We evaluated this categorized model performance regarding the actual endpoint of each patient.

RESULTS

881 patients were included in the study; 96 of them were ventilated. AUC of the original algorithm is 0.87-0.94. The AUC of the categorized model is 0.95.

CONCLUSIONS

A minor degradation in the algorithm accuracy was noted in the internal validation, however, its accuracy remained high. The categorized model allows accurate prediction over time, with very high negative predictive value.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are important respiratory support strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the results are conflicting for the risk of intubation with HFNC as compared to COT.

OBJECTIVES

We systematically synthesized the outcomes of HFNC relative to COT in COVID-19 patients with AHRF and evaluated these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.

DESIGN

This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

In total, 20 studies with 5732 patients were included. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation in HFNC compared to COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.82, p = 0.0009, I2 = 75%]. Similarly, we found HFNC was associated with lower risk of intubation rate compared to COT in the subgroup of patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55-0.86, p = 0.0007, I2 = 45%), and who were in ICU settings at enrollment (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85, p = 0.005, I2 = 80%). HFNC was associated with an improvement of PaO2/FiO2 and respiratory rate compared to COT. The use of HFNC compared to COT did not reduce the mortality rate, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Compared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, particularly among patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg and those in ICU settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022339072).

Efficiency of continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 develop acute respiratory distress syndrome characterized by relatively well-preserved pulmonary compliance but severe hypoxemia. The challenge in managing such patients lies in optimizing oxygenation, which can be achieved through either high oxygen flow or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. This study was performed to compare the efficiency of two methods of noninvasive oxygen therapy: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study involved 668 patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the "Sf. Apostol Andrei" Emergency Clinical Hospital, Galati, Romania from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 (CPAP, n = 108; HFNO, n = 108).

RESULTS

Mortality was significantly lower in the CPAP and HFNO groups than in the group of patients who underwent intubation and mechanical ventilation after ICU admission. Mortality in the ICU was not significantly different between the CPAP and HFNO groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNO and CPAP represent efficient alternative therapies for patients with severe COVID-19 whose respiratory treatment has failed. Studies involving larger groups of patients are necessary to establish a personalized, more complex management modality for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Safety and Outcome of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy Outside ICU Setting in Hypoxemic Patients With COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is frequently applied outside ICU setting in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. However, safety concerns limit more widespread use. We aimed to assess the safety and clinical outcomes of initiation of HFNO therapy in COVID-19 on non-ICU wards.

DESIGN

Prospective observational multicenter pragmatic study.

SETTING

Respiratory wards and ICUs of 10 hospitals in The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Adult patients treated with HFNO for COVID-19-associated hypoxemia between December 2020 and July 2021 were included. Patients with treatment limitations were excluded from this analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Outcomes included intubation and mortality rate, duration of hospital and ICU stay, severity of respiratory failure, and complications. Using propensity-matched analysis, we compared patients who initiated HFNO on the wards versus those in ICU. Six hundred eight patients were included, of whom 379 started HFNO on the ward and 229 in the ICU. The intubation rate in the matched cohort ( n = 214 patients) was 53% and 60% in ward and ICU starters, respectively ( p = 0.41). Mortality rates were comparable between groups (28-d [8% vs 13%], p = 0.28). ICU-free days were significantly higher in ward starters (21 vs 17 d, p < 0.001). No patient died before endotracheal intubation, and the severity of respiratory failure surrounding invasive ventilation and clinical outcomes did not differ between intubated ward and ICU starters (respiratory rate-oxygenation index 3.20 vs 3.38; Pa o2 :F io2 ratio 65 vs 64 mm Hg; prone positioning after intubation 81 vs 78%; mortality rate 17 vs 25% and ventilator-free days at 28 d 15 vs 13 d, all p values > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large cohort of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, initiation of HFNO outside the ICU was safe, and clinical outcomes were similar to initiation in the ICU. Furthermore, the initiation of HFNO on wards saved time in ICU without excess mortality or complicated course. Our results indicate that HFNO initiation outside ICU should be further explored in other hypoxemic diseases and clinical settings aiming to preserve ICU capacity and healthcare costs.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 remains uncertain. We aimed at assessing whether HFNC is associated with reduced risk of intubation or mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT).

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing HFNC vs. COT in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, published in English from inception to December 2022. Pediatric studies, studies that compared HFNC with a noninvasive respiratory support other than COT and those in which intubation or mortality were not reported were excluded. Two authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Fixed-effects or random-effects meta-analysis were performed according to statistical heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were risk of intubation and mortality across RCTs. Effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios and 95% confidence interval (RR; 95% CI). Observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were analyzed, accounting for 8383 patients, including 6 RCTs (2509 patients) and 14 observational studies (5874 patients). By pooling the 6 RCTs, HFNC compared with COT significantly reduced the risk of intubation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; p = 0.02) and reduced length of stay in hospital. HFNC did not significantly reduce the risk of mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; p = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, HFNC reduced the need for intubation and shortened length of stay in hospital without significant decreased risk of mortality. Trial registration The study was registered on the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ with the trial registration number CRD42022340035 (06/20/2022).

High flow nasal oxygen in frail COVID-19 patients hospitalized in intermediate care units and non-eligible to invasive mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

In COVID-19 patients, older age (sixty or older), comorbidities, and frailty are associated with a higher risk for mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) failure. It therefore seems appropriate to suggest limitations of care to older and vulnerable patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and a poor expected outcome, who would not benefit from invasive treatment. HFNO (high flow nasal oxygen) is a non-invasive respiratory support device already used in de novo acute respiratory failure. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the survival of patients treated with HFNO outside the ICU (intensive care unit) for a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, otherwise presenting limitations of care making them non-eligible for IMV. Secondary objectives were the description of our cohort and the identification of prognostic factors for HFNO failure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study. We included all patients with limitations of care making them non-eligible for IMV and treated with HFNO for a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalized in a COVID-19 unit of the pulmonology department of Lyon Sud University Hospital, France, from March 2020 to March 2021. Primary outcome was the description of the vital status at day-30 after HFNO initiation, using the WHO (World Health Organization) 7-points ordinal scale.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included. Median age was 83 years [76.3-87.0], mean duration for HFNO was 7.5 days, 53% had a CFS score (Clinical Frailty Scale) >4. At day-30, 73% of patients were deceased, one patient (2%) was undergoing HFNO, 9% of patients were discharged from hospital. HFNO failure occurred in 66% of patients. Clinical signs of respiratory failure before HFNO initiation (respiratory rate >30/min, retractions, and abdominal paradoxical breathing pattern) were associated with mortality (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that HFNO is an option in non-ICU skilled units for older and frail patients with a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, otherwise non-suitable for intensive care and mechanical ventilation. Observation of clinical signs of respiratory failure before HFNO initiation was associated with mortality.

[Ventilatory management of SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure]

COVID-19 pneumonia presents several particularities in its clinical presentation (cytokine storm, silent hypoxemia, thrombo-embolic risk) and may lead to a number of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotypes. While the optimal oxygenation strategy in cases of hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) is still under debate, ventilatory management of COVID-19-related ARF has confirmed the efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy and restored interest in other ventilatory approaches such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation involving a helmet, which due to patient overflow are sometimes implemented outside of critical care units. However, further studies are still needed to determine which patients should be given which oxygenation technique, and under which conditions they require invasive mechanical ventilation, given that delayed initiation potentially burdens prognosis. During invasive mechanical ventilation, ventral decubitus and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have become increasingly prevalent. While innovative therapies such as awake prone position or lung transplantation have likewise been developed, their indications, modalities and efficacy remain to be determined.

Daily ROX index can predict transitioning to mechanical ventilation within the next 24 h in COVID-19 patients on HFNC

INTRODUCTION

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is used to prevent invasive ventilation in COVID-19-associated hypoxemia. The respiratory rate‑oxygenation (ROX) index has been reported to predict failure of HFNC in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the intensive care unit stay when measured in first hours of therapy. However, the clinical course of ICU patients may change substantially in the first days of admission. The objective of this study was to investigate whether ROX index obtained in the first four days of ICU admission could predict the need for invasive respiratory support within the next 24 h of measurements.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using a database that included adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated in the ICU. Patients were followed from ICU admission and ROX index was calculated daily on HFNC. Receiver operating characteristics curves (ROCs) were performed.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-nine patients were enrolled, 48% of whom require mechanical ventilation (MV). The area under the ROC of the pooled 4-day values of the ROX index as a predictor of transition from HFNC to MV within 24 h of measurements was 0.86 (95%CI 0.83 to 0.88, P < 0.001) with a cutoff point of 4.06.

CONCLUSION

In COVID-19 patients in high flow nasal cannula, daily ROX index measurements successfully predicted transition to mechanical ventilation within the next 24 h.

Cost Analysis of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy Compared with Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Severe COVID-19 in Colombia: Data from a Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

A randomized clinical trial (HiFlo-COVID-19 Trial) showed that among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) significantly reduced the need for invasive mechanical ventilation support and time for clinical recovery compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). However, the cost of this strategy is unknown.

Objective

We examined total cost of HFOT treatment compared with COT in real-world setting.

Methods

We conducted a post-trial-based cost analysis from the perspective of a managed competition healthcare system, using actual records of billed costs. Cost categories include general ward, intensive care unit, procedures, imaging, laboratories, medications, supplies, and others.

Results

A total of 188 participants (mean age 60, 33% female) were included. Average costs (and standard deviation) in the HFOT group were USD $7992 (7394) and in the COT group USD $ 10,190 (9402). Differences, however, did not reach statistical significance (P=0.093). However, resource use was always less costly for the HNFO group, with an overall percentage decrease of 27%. Two categories make up 72% of all savings: medications (41%) and intensive care unit (31%).

Conclusion

For patients in ICU with severe COVID-19 the cost of treatment with HFOT as compared to COT is likely to be cost-saving due to less use of medications and length of stay in ICU.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula oxygen therapy in COVID-19: retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes - single center experience

Background

High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy emerged as the therapy of choice in COVID-19-related pneumonia and moderate to severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). HFNC oxygen therapy in COVID-19 has been recommended based its use to treat AHRF of other etiologies, and studies on assessing outcomes in COVID-19 patients are highly needed. This study aimed to examine outcomes in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia and severe AHRF treated with HFNC.

Materials and methods

The study included 235 COVID-19 patients with pneumonia treated with HFNC. Data extracted from medical records included demographic characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, clinical and oxygenation status, clinical complications, as well as the length of hospital stay. Patients were segregated into two groups based on their oxygen therapy needs: HDU group, those who exclusively required HFNC and ICU group, those whose oxygen therapy needed to be escalated at some point of hospital stay. The primary outcome was the need for respiratory support escalation (noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation) and the secondary outcome was the in-hospital all-cause mortality.

Results

The primary outcome was met in 113 (48%) of patients. The overall mortality was 70%, significantly higher in the ICU group [102 (90.2%) vs. 62 (50.1%), p < 0.001]. The rate of intrahospital infections was significantly higher in the ICU group while there were no significant differences in the length of hospital stay between the groups. The ICU group exhibited significant increases in D-dimer, NLR, and NEWS values, accompanied by a significant decrease in the SaO2/FiO2 ratio. The multivariable COX proportional regression analysis identified malignancy, higher levels of 4C Mortality Score and NEWS2 as significant predictors of mortality.

Conclusion

High-Flow Nasal Cannula oxygen therapy is a safe type of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with significantly less possibility for emergence of intrahospital infections. In 52% of patients, HFNC was successful in treating AHRF in COVID-19 patients. Overall, mortality in COVID-19 pneumonia with AHRF is still very high, especially in patients treated with noninvasive/invasive mechanical ventilation.

Sleep Assessment in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND

Sleep deprivation alters respiratory muscle performance and may precipitate respiratory failure. This study aimed to assess sleep in subjects admitted to ICU for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and its role in the risk of intubation.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational single-center cohort study including subjects admitted to ICU for de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure defined as breathing frequency ≥ 25 breaths/min or clinical signs of respiratory distress and PaO2 /FIO2 < 300 mm Hg while receiving high-flow nasal oxygen. Subjects with altered consciousness, central nervous or psychiatric disorders, continuous sedation or neuroleptic medication, or were uncooperative were excluded. Sleep was assessed by complete polysomnography (PSG) the night following ICU admission. The main outcome was to assess sleep among subjects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and to compare sleep between subjects who eventually required intubation to those who did not.

RESULTS

Over a 24-month inclusion period, 34 subjects had complete PSG, among whom 5 (15%) required intubation in the ICU. Total sleep time was 4.2 h in median (interquartile range 2.9-6.8); deep-sleep duration was 70 min (34-127), and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep duration was 9 min (0-28). Among them, 13 subjects (38%) had no REM sleep. Total sleep time and duration of deep and REM sleep stages did not differ between subjects who required intubation and those successfully treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas total sleep time remained relatively preserved in critically ill subjects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, REM sleep time was uncommon or completely absent in a large number of subjects. Sleep did not differ between subjects who required intubation and those who did not. However, given a trend toward an increased risk of intubation in subjects with a complete absence of REM sleep, further studies are needed to better explore the impact of REM sleep on the risk of intubation.

Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Adult Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several recently published randomized controlled trials have evaluated various noninvasive oxygenation strategies for the treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Which available noninvasive oxygen strategies are effective for acute hypoxic respiratory failure?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, MedRxiv, and Research Square was conducted from inception to October 1, 2022. A random effects frequentist network meta-analysis was performed, and the results are presented using absolute risk difference per 1,000 patients. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of hospitalization and ICU stay, ventilator-free days, and level of comfort are reported.

RESULTS

Thirty-six trials (7,046 patients) were included. It was found that helmet CPAP probably reduces mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT) (231 fewer deaths per 1,000; 95% CI, 126-273 fewer) (moderate certainty). A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000; 95% CI, 40.5-157.5 fewer) (moderate certainty). All noninvasive oxygenation strategies may reduce the duration of hospitalization as compared with SOT (low certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation (4.84 days fewer; 95% CI, 2.33-7.36 days fewer) and helmet CPAP (1.74 days fewer; 95% CI, 4.49 fewer-1.01 more) may reduce the duration of ICU stay as compared with SOT (both low certainty). SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation and no different in comfort compared with an HFNC (both low certainty).

INTERPRETATION

A helmet interface for noninvasive ventilation probably reduces mortality and the risk of mechanical ventilation, as well as the duration of hospital and ICU stay. An HFNC probably reduces the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and may be as comfortable as SOT. Further research is necessary to understand the role of these interfaces in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Days spent on non-invasive ventilation support: can it determine when to initiate VV- ECMO? Observational study in a cohort of Covid-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The study evaluates the impact of the time between commencing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) support and initiation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in a cohort of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

Prospective observational study design in an intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a tertiary hospital in Barcelona (Spain). All patients requiring VV-ECMO support due to COVID-19 associated ARDS between March 2020 and January 2022 were analysed. Survival outcome was determined at 90 days after VV-ECMO initiation. Demographic data, comorbidities at ICU admission, RESP (respiratory ECMO survival prediction) score, antiviral and immunomodulatory treatments received, inflammatory biomarkers, the need for vasopressors, the thromboprophylaxis regimen received, and respiratory parameters including the length of intubation previous to ECMO and the length of each NIV support (high-flow nasal cannula, continuous positive airway pressure and bi-level positive airway pressure), were also collated in order to assess risk factors for day-90 mortality. The effect of the time lapse between NIV support and VV-ECMO on survival was evaluated using logistic regression and adjusting the association with all factors that were significant in the univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients finally received VV-ECMO support. At 90 days after commencing VV-ECMO 35 patients (48%) had died and 37 patients (52%) were alive. Multivariable analysis showed that at VV-ECMO initiation, age (p = 0.02), lactate (p = 0.001), and days from initiation of NIV support to starting VV-ECMO (p = 0.04) were all associated with day-90 mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In our small cohort of VV-ECMO patients with COVID-19 associated ARDS, the time spent between initiation of NIV support and VV-ECMO (together with age and lactate) appeared to be a better predictor of mortality than the time between intubation and VV-ECMO.

High-flow nasal cannula therapy in patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units in a country with limited resources: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to determine the outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who developed hypoxemic respiratory failure necessitating high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy and to identify the predictors of HFNC therapy success.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study involved all patients treated with HFNC therapy at a center for COVID-19 in Viet Nam from August to October 2021.

RESULTS

The study recruited 302 patients. Of these 302 patients, 171 (56.6%) underwent successful HFNC therapy, and the all-cause mortality rate was 33.44%. Non-critical COVID-19 and a higher respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index at 48 hours after initiating HFNC therapy were independently correlated with HFNC therapy success. The statistically significant predictors of HFNC therapy success were younger age, non-critical COVID-19, a higher platelet count when starting HFNC therapy, and a higher ROX index at 24, 36, and 48 hours after HFNC therapy initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC therapy appears to be effective in patients with COVID-19 who develop respiratory failure requiring respiratory support. Non-critical COVID-19 and a higher ROX index measured 48 hours after HFNC therapy initiation might serve as predictive factors for the success of HFNC therapy.

Acute dyspnea in the emergency department: a clinical review

Acute dyspnea represents one of the most frequent symptoms leading to emergency room evaluation. Its significant prognostic value warrants a careful evaluation. The differential diagnosis of dyspnea is complex due to the lack of specificity and the loose association between its intensity and the severity of the underlying pathological condition. The initial assessment of dyspnea calls for prompt diagnostic evaluation and identification of optimal monitoring strategy and provides information useful to allocate the patient to the most appropriate setting of care. In recent years, accumulating evidence indicated that lung ultrasound, along with echocardiography, represents the first rapid and non-invasive line of assessment that accurately differentiates heart, lung or extra-pulmonary involvement in patients with dyspnea. Moreover, non-invasive respiratory support modalities such as high-flow nasal oxygen and continuous positive airway pressure have aroused major clinical interest, in light of their efficacy and practicality to treat patients with dyspnea requiring ventilatory support, without using invasive mechanical ventilation. This clinical review is focused on the pathophysiology of acute dyspnea, on its clinical presentation and evaluation, including ultrasound-based diagnostic workup, and on available non-invasive modalities of respiratory support that may be required in patients with acute dyspnea secondary or associated with respiratory failure.

ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

The COVID-19 Driving Force: How It Shaped the Evidence of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) became crucial in treating patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Despite the fear of viral aerosolization, non-invasive respiratory support has gained attention as a way to alleviate ICU overcrowding and reduce the risks associated with intubation. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increased demand for research, resulting in numerous publications on observational studies, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses in the past three years. This comprehensive narrative overview describes the physiological rationale, pre-COVID-19 evidence, and results of observational studies and randomized control trials regarding the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure in adult patients with COVID-19 and associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The review also highlights the significance of guidelines and recommendations provided by international societies and the need for further well-designed research to determine the optimal use of NIRS in treating this population.

Comparison of the efficacy and comfort of high-flow nasal cannula with different initial flow settings in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been proven effective in improving patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but a discussion of its use for initial flow settings still need to be provided. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and comfort evaluation of HFNC with different initial flow settings in patients with AHRF.

METHODS

Studies published by October 10, 2022, were searched exhaustively in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed with STATA 17.0 and R software (version 4.2.1). A Bayesian framework was applied for this NMA. Comparisons of competing models based on the deviance information criterion (DIC) were used to select the best model for NMA. The primary outcome is the intubation at day 28. Secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term mortality, comfort score, length of ICU or hospital stay, and 24-h PaO₂/FiO₂.

RESULTS

This NMA included 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5774 patients. With NIV as the control, the HFNC_high group was significantly associated with lower intubation rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.72 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.56 to 0.93; moderate quality evidence) and short-term mortality (OR 0.81 95% CrI 0.69 to 0.96; moderate quality evidence). Using HFNC_Moderate (Mod) group (mean difference [MD] - 1.98 95% CrI -3.98 to 0.01; very low quality evidence) as a comparator, the HFNC_Low group had a slight advantage in comfort scores but no statistically significant difference. Of all possible interventions, the HFNC_High group had the highest probability of being the best in reducing intubation rates (73.04%), short-term (82.74%) and long-term mortality (67.08%). While surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA) indicated that the HFNC_Low group had the highest probability of being the best in terms of comfort scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The high initial flow settings (50-60 L/min) performed better in decreasing the occurrence of intubation and mortality, albeit with poor comfort scores. Treatment of HFNC for AHRF patients ought to be initiated from moderate flow rates (30-40 L/min), and individualized flow settings can make HFNC more sensible in clinical practice.

Is COVID-19 different from other causes of acute respiratory distress syndrome?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia can lead to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. When mechanical ventilation is needed, almost all patients with COVID-19 pneumonia meet the criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The question of the specificities of COVID-19-associated ARDS compared to other causes of ARDS is of utmost importance, as it may justify changes in ventilatory strategies. This review aims to describe the pathophysiology of COVID-19-associated ARDS and discusses whether specific ventilatory strategies are required in these patients.

High-Flow Nasal Therapy in Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure: Past, Present, and Future

High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) was introduced into clinical practice in the early 2000s as a form of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) [...]

Oxygen therapy alternatives in COVID-19: From classical to nanomedicine

Around 10-15% of COVID-19 patients affected by the Delta and the Omicron variants exhibit acute respiratory insufficiency and require intensive care unit admission to receive advanced respiratory support. However, the current ventilation methods display several limitations, including lung injury, dysphagia, respiratory muscle atrophy, and hemorrhage. Furthermore, most of the ventilatory techniques currently offered require highly trained professionals and oxygen cylinders, which may attain short supply owing to the high demand and misuse. Therefore, the search for new alternatives for oxygen therapeutics has become extremely important for maintaining gas exchange in patients affected by COVID-19. This review highlights and suggest new alternatives based on micro and nanostructures capable of supplying oxygen and/or enabling hematosis during moderate or acute COVID-19 cases.

Lessons from COVID-19 in the management of acute respiratory failure

Accumulated evidence supports the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support therapies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, alleviating admissions to intensive care units. Noninvasive respiratory support strategies, including high-flow oxygen therapy, continuous positive airway pressure via mask or helmet and noninvasive ventilation, can be alternatives that may avoid the need for invasive ventilation. Alternating different noninvasive respiratory support therapies and introducing complementary interventions, like self-proning, may improve outcomes. Proper monitoring is warranted to ensure the efficacy of the techniques and to avoid complications while supporting transfer to the intensive care unit. This article reviews the latest evidence on noninvasive respiratory support therapies in COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

How long is too long: A retrospective study evaluating the impact of the duration of noninvasive oxygenation support strategies (high flow nasal cannula & BiPAP) on mortality in invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND/AIM

We investigated the association of noninvasive oxygenation support [high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and BiPAP], timing of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (ICD-10 code U07.1) and received IMV from March 2020-October 2021. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was calculated; Obesity defined as body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2; morbid obesity was BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. Clinical parameters/vital signs recorded at time of admission.

RESULTS

709 COVID-19 patients underwent IMV, predominantly admitted from March-May 2020 (45%), average age 62±15 years, 67% male, 37% Hispanic, and 9% from group living settings. 44% had obesity, 11% had morbid obesity, 55% had type II diabetes, 75% had hypertension, and average CCI was 3.65 (SD = 3.11). Crude mortality rate was 56%. Close linear association of age with inpatient-mortality risk was found [OR (95% CI) = 1.35 (1.27-1.44) per 5 years, p<0.0001)]. Patients who died after IMV received noninvasive oxygenation support significantly longer: 5.3 (8.0) vs. 2.7 (SD 4.6) days; longer use was also independently associated with a higher risk of inpatient-mortality: OR = 3.1 (1.8-5.4) for 3-7 days, 7.2 (3.8-13.7) for ≥8 days (reference: 1-2 days) (p<0.0001). The association magnitude varied between age groups: 3-7 days duration (ref: 1-2 days), OR = 4.8 (1.9-12.1) in ≥65 years old vs. 2.1 (1.0-4.6) in <65 years old. Higher mortality risk was associated with higher CCI in patients ≥65 (P = 0.0082); among younger patients, obesity (OR = 1.8 (1.0-3.2) or morbid obesity (OR = 2.8;1.4-5.9) (p<0.05) were associated. No mortality association was found for sex or race.

CONCLUSION

Time spent on noninvasive oxygenation support [as defined by high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and BiPAP] prior to IMV increased mortality risk. Research for the generalizability of our findings to other respiratory failure patient populations is needed.

Newly Proposed Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Does Inclusion of High Flow Nasal Cannula Solve the Problem?

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common life-threatening clinical syndrome which accounts for 10% of intensive care unit admissions. Since the Berlin definition was developed, the clinical diagnosis and therapy have changed dramatically by adding a minimum positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to the assessment of hypoxemia compared to the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC) definition in 1994. High-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) have become widely used as an effective respiratory support for hypoxemia to the extent that their use was proposed in the expansion of the ARDS criteria. However, there would be problems if the diagnosis of a specific disease or clinical syndrome occurred, based on therapeutic strategies.

Advantages and drawbacks of helmet noninvasive support in acute respiratory failure

INTRODUCTION

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) represents an effective strategy for managing acute respiratory failure. Facemask NIV is strongly recommended in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with hypercapnia and acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). Its role in managing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) remains a debated issue. NIV and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) delivered through the helmet are recently receiving growing interest for AHRF management.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we discuss the clinical applications of helmet support compared to the other available noninvasive strategies in the different phenotypes of acute respiratory failure.

EXPERT OPINION

Helmets enable the use of high positive end-expiratory pressure, which may protect from self-inflicted lung injury: in AHRF, the possible superiority of helmet support over other noninvasive strategies in terms of clinical outcome has been hypothesized in a network metanalysis and a randomized trial, but has not been confirmed by other investigations and warrants confirmation. In AECOPD patients, helmet efficacy may be inferior to that of face masks, and its use prompts caution due to the risk of CO₂ rebreathing. Helmet support can be safely applied in hypoxemic patients with ACPE, with no advantages over facemasks.

[The perioperative role of high-flow cannula oxygen (HFNO)]

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO) is commonly used during the perioperative period. Its numerous physiological benefits, satisfactory tolerance and ease of use have led to its widespread application in intensive care and post-anesthesia care units. HFNO is also used in the operating theater in multiple indications: as oxygen supplementation (associated with pressurization) prior to orotracheal intubation; in digestive and bronchial endoscopies, especially in patients at risk of hypoxemia; and in intraoperative surgery requiring spontaneous ventilation (ENT, thoracic surgery…). During the postoperative period, HFNO can be used in a curative strategy for respiratory failure or in a prophylactic strategy to prevent reintubation. In a curative approach, HFNO seems of interest following cardiac or thoracic surgery but has not been evaluated in respiratory failure subsequent to abdominal surgery, in which case noninvasive ventilation remains the gold standard. The risk of respiratory complications depends on type of surgery and on patient comorbidities. As prophylaxis, HFNO is currently preferred to conventional oxygen therapy after cardiac or thoracic surgery, especially in patients at high risk of respiratory complications. For the clinician, it is important to acknowledge the limits of HFNO and to closely monitor patients receiving HFNO, the objective being to avoid delays in intubation that could lead to increased mortality.

High-flow nasal oxygen in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A narrative review of the evidence before and after the COVID-19 pandemic

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is a type of non-invasive advanced respiratory support that allows the delivery of high-flow and humidified air through a nasal cannula. It can deliver a higher inspired oxygen fraction than conventional oxygen therapy (COT), improves secretion clearance, has a small positive end-expiratory pressure, and exhibits a washout effect on the upper air space that diminishes dead space ventilation. HFNO has been shown to reduce the work of breathing in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and has become an interesting option for non-invasive respiratory support. Evidence published before the COVID-19 pandemic suggested a possible reduction of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation compared to COT. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a substantial increase in AHRF worldwide, overwhelming both acute and intensive care unit capacity in most countries. This triggered new trials, adding to the body of evidence on HFNO in AHRF and its possible benefits compared to COT or non-invasive ventilation. We have summarized and discussed this recent evidence to inform the best supportive strategy in AHRF both related and unrelated to COVID-19.