6-Month Respiratory Outcomes and Exercise Capacity of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure Patients Treated With CPAP

Functional Recovery of Adults Following Acute COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the objective, functional recovery of patients more than 3 months after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

METHODS

Comprehensive database searches of EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CINAHL, and Google Scholar in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement were carried out until October 19, 2022. Data were extracted and agreed in duplicate. Data were narratively synthesized, and a series of meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects inverse variance method.

RESULTS

One-hundred six papers covering 20,063 patients, who were either hospitalized or not hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and were followed-up between 3 and 24 months, were included. Percentage predicted 6-minute walk distance at 3 months to <5 months was 84.3% (95% CI = 79.2-89.3; n = 21; I2 = 98.3%) and 92.5% (95% CI = 89.8-95.3; n = 9; I2 = 94.5%) at ≥11 months. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing revealed the percentage predicted peak oxygen consumption rate ($peak\dot{\mathsf{V}}{\mathsf{o}}_{\mathsf{2}}$) at 3 months to <5 months was 77.3% (95% CI = 71.0-83.7; n = 6; I2 = 92.3%) and 95.4% (95% CI = 87.1-103.6; n = 2; I2 = 77.3%) at ≥11 months. Mean handgrip strength was greatest at ≥11 months at 31.16 kg (95% CI = 19.89-42.43; n = 2; I2 = 98.3%) of all time points. All analyses showed marked heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Patients have reduced physical function more than 3 months after COVID-19 infection. Better physical function in multiple physical domains is found after a longer recovery time.

IMPACT

Physical function as measured by the 6-minute walk test, hand grip strength, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing is reduced at 3 months after COVID-19 infection and can remain over 11 months of follow-up. This protracted recovery following acute COVID-19 infection supports the need to assess physical function at any clinical follow-up, and further research into rehabilitation programs and intervention for patients who have not recovered.

Helmet c-PAP Versus NIPPV in Association with Early Respiratory Physiotherapy and Mobilization for Treating SARS-CoV-2 ARDS: A Case-control Prospective Single-center Study

Introduction: Early noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) is correlated with a success rate of 60-75% in patients experiencing SARS-CoV-2 ARDS. We conducted a prospective case-control study to assess differences in outcomes between Helmet c-PAP (H-c-PAP) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). Methods: All patients with SARS-CoV-2 ARDS, treated with H-c-PAP or NIPPV between October 2021 and April 2022 were sampled. We recorded: demographics, comorbidities, clinical, respiratory, sepsis, NIRS parameters, and outcomes. A "NIRS team" followed the patients in respiratory support supplying them with early and timely intensive physiotherapy i-PKT as well. The Cox's proportional hazard model was applied for multivariate analyses. Results: 368 patients were admitted to our hospital medical ward. 85 patients were treated with H-c-PAP and 145 underwent NIPPV. 138 patients needing oxygen supplementation alone were excluded. The two groups were homogeneously distributed and ICU admission rates were lower in the H-c-PAP one (9.4 vs 11% P = .001) while mortality was higher in the NIPPV group (22.7 vs 9.4%, P = .001). The two multivariate models, that had overall mortality as primary outcome, identified age, H-c-PAP daily, i-PKT and ICU admission as independent variables impacting on the outcome. Age was no longer a significant independent predictor after the inclusion of elderly patients (age >80). The third model showed daily i-PKT could prevent ICU admission whereas the length of NIRS was inversely proportional to outcome. Conclusions: A "NIRS multidisciplinary team" made it possible to adopt an early and timely combination of NIRS and i-PKT resulting in the saving of both patient lives and ICU resources.

Effect of Physical Exercise-Based Rehabilitation on Long COVID: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The number of persons living with post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) conditions or long COVID continues to rise worldwide; however, the etiology and the treatment of long COVID remain nebulous. Therefore, efficient, feasible, and cost-effective therapeutic strategies for a large population with long COVID remain warranted. Physical exercise-based rehabilitation is a promising strategy for long COVID, although its therapeutic effects remain to be determined. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of physical exercise-based rehabilitation on long COVID.

METHODS

The electronic databases Medline, Embase, Global Health (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, WHO Global Research Database on COVID-19, LitCovid, and Google Scholar were searched from their inception to November 2022. The identified articles were independently screened by three reviewers, and a random-effects model was used to determine the mean differences in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies involving 1579 individuals who had COVID-19 (752 women) were included. Physical exercise-based rehabilitation showed beneficial effects on long COVID-related symptoms characterized by dyspnea, fatigue, and depression, as well as on the 6-min walk test, forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity, and quality of life in people who had COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical exercise-based rehabilitation is a potential therapeutic strategy against long COVID and can be applied as a routine clinical practice in people who have recovered from COVID-19. However, customized physical exercise-based rehabilitation programs and their effects on specific types of long COVID require future large-scale studies.

Two-year multidisciplinary follow-up of COVID-19 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive respiratory support

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 patients frequently develop respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Data on long-term survival of patients who had severe COVID-19 are insufficient. We assessed and compared two-year survival, CT imaging, quality of life, and functional recovery of COVID-19 ARDS patients requiring respiratory support with invasive (IMV) versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV).

METHODS

Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted up to May 28th, 2020, who required IMV or NIV, and survived to hospital discharge were enrolled. Patients were contacted two years after discharge to assess vital status, functional, psychological, and cognitive outcomes using validated scales. Patients with persistent respiratory symptoms or high burden of residual lung damage at previous CT scan received a two-year chest CT scan.

RESULTS

Out of 61 IMV survivors, 98% were alive at two-year follow-up, and 52 completed the questionnaire. Out of 82 survivors receiving NIV only, 94% were alive at two years, and 47 completed the questionnaire. We found no major differences between invasively and noninvasively ventilated patients, with overall acceptable functional recovery. Among the 99 patients completing the questionnaire, 23 have more than moderate exertional dyspnea. Chest CT scans showed that 4 patients (all received IMV) had fibrotic-like changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 and were discharged from hospital had a 96% survival rate at the two-year follow-up. There was no difference in overall recovery and quality of life between patients who did and did not require IMV, although respiratory morbidity remains high.

Cardiopulmonary Outcomes in Covid-19 Patients Discharged From a Tertiary Care Center: A Prospective Study

To determine the cardiopulmonary changes in the survivors of acute COVID-19 infection at 3-6 month and 6-12 month. We followed up 53 patients out of which 28 (52%) had mild COVID-19 and 25 (48%) had severe COVID-19. The first follow-up was between 3 month after diagnosis up to 6 month and second follow-up between 6 and 12 month from the date of diagnosis of acute COVID-19. They were monitored using vital parameters, pulmonary function tests, echocardiography and a chest computed tomography (CT) scan. We found improvement in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) with a median of 52% of predicted and 80% of predicted at the first and second follow-up, respectively. There was improvement in the CTSS in severe group from 22 (18-24) to 12 (10-18; p-0.001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed increased odds of past severe disease with higher CTSS at follow-up (OR-1.7 [CI 1.14-2.77]; P = 0.01). Correlation was found between CTSS and DLCO at second follow-up (r2 = 0.36; p < 0.01). Most of patients recovered from COVID-19 but a subgroup of patients continued to have persistent radiological and pulmonary function abnormalities necessitating a structured follow-up.

Prevalence, risk factors and treatments for post-COVID-19 breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Persistent breathlessness >28 days after acute COVID-19 infection has been identified as a highly debilitating post-COVID symptom. However, the prevalence, risk factors, mechanisms and treatments for post-COVID breathlessness remain poorly understood. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for relevant studies published from 1 January 2020 to 1 November 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021285733) and included 119 eligible papers. Random-effects meta-analysis of 42 872 patients with COVID-19 reported in 102 papers found an overall prevalence of post-COVID breathlessness of 26% (95% CI 23-29) when measuring the presence/absence of the symptom, and 41% (95% CI 34-48) when using Medical Research Council (MRC)/modified MRC dyspnoea scale. The pooled prevalence decreased significantly from 1-6 months to 7-12 months post-infection. Post-COVID breathlessness was more common in those with severe/critical acute infection, those who were hospitalised and females, and was less likely to be reported by patients in Asia than those in Europe or North America. Multiple pathophysiological mechanisms have been proposed (including deconditioning, restrictive/obstructive airflow limitation, systemic inflammation, impaired mental health), but the body of evidence remains inconclusive. Seven cohort studies and one randomised controlled trial suggested rehabilitation exercises may reduce post-COVID breathlessness. There is an urgent need for mechanistic research and development of interventions for the prevention and treatment of post-COVID breathlessness.

One-Year Multidisciplinary Follow-Up of Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

OBJECTIVES

Patients with COVID-19 frequently develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Data on long-term survival of these patients are lacking. The authors investigated 1-year survival, quality of life, and functional recovery of patients with COVID-19 ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with COVID-19 ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and discharged alive from hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were contacted by phone after 1 year. Functional, cognitive, and psychological outcomes were explored through a questionnaire and assessed using validated scales. Patients were offered the possibility to undergo a follow-up chest computed tomography (CT) scan.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The study included all adult (age ≥18 years) patients with COVID-19-related ARDS admitted to an ICU of the authors' institution between February 25, 2020, and April 27, 2020, who received at least 1 day of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Of 116 patients who received IMV, 61 (52.6%) survived to hospital discharge. These survivors were assessed 1 year after discharge and 56 completed a battery of tests of cognition, activities of daily living, and interaction with family members. They had overall good functional recovery, with >80% reporting good recovery and no difficulties in usual activities. A total of 52 (93%) of patients had no dyspnea at rest. Severe anxiety/depression was reported by 5 (8.9%) patients. Comparing 2-month and 1-year data, the authors observed the most significant improvements in the areas of working status and exertional dyspnea. One-year chest CT scans were available for 36 patients; fibrotic-like changes were present in 4 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients who survived the acute phase of COVID-19 and were discharged from the hospital were alive at the 1-year follow up, and the vast majority of them had good overall recovery and quality of life.

Severity of respiratory failure and computed chest tomography in acute COVID-19 correlates with pulmonary function and respiratory symptoms after infection with SARS-CoV-2: An observational longitudinal study over 12 months

INTRODUCTION

Prospective and longitudinal data on pulmonary injury over one year after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are sparse. We aim to determine reductions in pulmonary function and respiratory related quality of life up to 12 months after acute COVID-19.

METHODS

Patients with acute COVID-19 were enrolled into an ongoing single-centre, prospective observational study and prospectively examined 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months after onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Chest CT-scans, pulmonary function and symptoms assessed by St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire were used to evaluate respiratory limitations. Patients were stratified according to severity of acute COVID-19.

RESULTS

Median age of all patients was 57 years, 37.8% were female. Higher age, male sex and higher BMI were associated with acute-COVID-19 severity (p < 0.0001, 0.001 and 0.004 respectively). Also, pulmonary restriction and reduced carbon monoxide diffusion capacity was associated with disease severity. In patients with restriction and impaired diffusion capacity, FVC improved over 12 months from 61.32 to 71.82, TLC from 68.92 to 76.95, DLCO from 60.18 to 68.98 and KCO from 81.28 to 87.80 (percent predicted values; p = 0.002, 0.045, 0.0002 and 0.0005). The CT-score of lung involvement in the acute phase was associated with restriction and reduction in diffusion capacity in follow-up. Respiratory symptoms improved for patients in higher severity groups during follow-up, but not for patients with initially mild disease.

CONCLUSION

Severity of respiratory failure during COVID-19 correlates with the degree of pulmonary function impairment and respiratory quality of life in the year after acute infection.

Management of COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Failure with Alternatives to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: High-Flow Oxygen, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Noninvasive Ventilation

Patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may develop acute respiratory failure (ARF) with compromised gas exchange. These patients require oxygen and possibly ventilatory support, which can be delivered via different devices. Initially, oxygen therapy will often be administered through a conventional binasal oxygen catheter or air-entrainment mask. However, when higher rates of oxygen flow are needed, patients are often stepped up to high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). BiPAP, CPAP, and HFNC may be beneficial alternatives to IMV for COVID-19-associated ARF. Current evidence suggests that when nasal catheter oxygen therapy is insufficient for adequate oxygenation of patients with COVID-19-associated ARF, CPAP should be provided for prolonged periods. Subsequent escalation to IMV may be implemented if necessary.

Management of COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Failure with Alternatives to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: High-Flow Oxygen, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Noninvasive Ventilation

Patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may develop acute respiratory failure (ARF) with compromised gas exchange. These patients require oxygen and possibly ventilatory support, which can be delivered via different devices. Initially, oxygen therapy will often be administered through a conventional binasal oxygen catheter or air-entrainment mask. However, when higher rates of oxygen flow are needed, patients are often stepped up to high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). BiPAP, CPAP, and HFNC may be beneficial alternatives to IMV for COVID-19-associated ARF. Current evidence suggests that when nasal catheter oxygen therapy is insufficient for adequate oxygenation of patients with COVID-19-associated ARF, CPAP should be provided for prolonged periods. Subsequent escalation to IMV may be implemented if necessary.

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an anti-malarial and immunomodulatory drug considered a potential candidate for drug repurposing in COVID-19 due to their in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2. Despite the potential antiviral effects and anti-inflammatory profile, the results based on clinical studies are contradictory. Therefore, the quality of the decision-making process from meta-analyses summarizing the available evidence selecting studies with different designs and unblinded trials is limited. The aim of this study was to synthesize the best evidence on the efficacy and safety of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Lilacs, the website ClinicalTrials.gov and the preprint server medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to May 17, 2021. The following elements were used to define eligibility criteria: (1) Population: individuals at high-risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (pre-exposure), individuals who had close contact with a positive or probable case of COVID-19 (post-exposure), non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with COVID-19; (2) Intervention: HCQ; (3) Comparison: placebo; (4) Outcomes: incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, need for hospitalization, length of hospital stay, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV), death, and adverse events; and (5) Study type: blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Risk of bias was judged according to the Cochrane guidelines for RCTs. Treatment effects were reported as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used either a fixed or random-effects model to pool the results of individual studies depending on the presence of heterogeneity. The GRADE system was used to evaluate the strength of evidence between use of HCQ and the outcomes of interest.

FINDINGS

Fourteen blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Four trials (1942 patients: HCQ = 1271; placebo = 671) used HCQ as a prophylactic medication pre-exposure to COVID-19, two (1650 patients: HCQ = 821; placebo = 829) as a prophylactic medication post-exposure to COVID-19, three (1018 patients: HCQ = 497; placebo = 521) as treatment for non-hospitalized patients, and five (1138 patients: HCQ = 572; placebo = 566) as treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We found no decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals receiving HCQ as pre-exposure (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.77) or post-exposure (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29) prophylaxis to prevent COVID-19. There was no significant decreased risk of hospitalization for outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23) and no decreased risk of MV (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.34) and death (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.78) among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving HCQ. The certainty of the results on the lack of clinical benefit for HCQ was rated as moderate. Moreover, our results demonstrated an increased risk for any adverse events and gastrointestinal symptoms among those using HCQ.

INTERPRETATION

Available evidence based on the results of blinded, placebo-controlled RCTs showed no clinical benefits of HCQ as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

FUNDING

There was no funding source.