High-Flow Nasal Cannula Failure Odds Is Largely Independent of Duration of Use in COVID-19

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.

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.

The impact of timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19-related respiratory failure

PURPOSE

Optimal timing of initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure is unclear. We hypothesized that a strategy of IMV as opposed to continuing high flow oxygen or non-invasive mechanical ventilation each day after reaching a high FiO2 threshold would be associated with worse in-hospital mortality.

METHODS

Using data from Kaiser Permanente Northern/Southern California's 36 medical centers, we identified patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure who reached ≥80% FiO2 on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation. Exposure was IMV initiation each day after reaching high FiO2 threshold (T₀). We developed propensity scores with overlap weighting for receipt of IMV each day adjusting for confounders. We reported relative risk of inpatient death with 95% Confidence Interval.

RESULTS

Of 28,035 hospitalizations representing 21,175 patient-days, 5758 patients were included (2793 received and 2965 did not receive IMV). Patients receiving IMV had higher unadjusted mortality (63.6% versus 18.2%, P < 0.0001). On each day after reaching T₀ through day >10, the adjusted relative risk was higher for those receiving IMV compared to those not receiving IMV (Relative Risk>1).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of IMV on each day after patients reach high FiO2 threshold was associated with higher inpatient mortality after adjusting for time-varying confounders. Remaining on high flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation does not appear to be harmful compared to IMV. Prospective evaluation is needed.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and COVID-19-related respiratory failure

Although standard oxygen face masks are first-line therapy for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy has gained major popularity in intensive care units. The physiological effects of high-flow oxygen counterbalance the physiological consequences of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure by lessening the deleterious effects of intense and prolonged inspiratory efforts generated by patients. Its simplicity of application for physicians and nurses and its comfort for patients are other arguments for its use in this setting. Although clinical studies have reported a decreased risk of intubation with high-flow oxygen compared with standard oxygen, its survival benefit is uncertain. A more precise definition of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, including a classification of severity based on oxygenation levels, is needed to better compare the efficiencies of different non-invasive oxygenation support methods (standard oxygen, high-flow oxygen, and non-invasive ventilation). Additionally, the respective role of each non-invasive oxygenation support method needs to be established through further clinical trials in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, especially in severe forms.

Outcomes in Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Secondary to COVID-19 Treated with Noninvasive Respiratory Support versus Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

Purpose

The goal of this study was to compare noninvasive respiratory support to invasive mechanical ventilation as the initial respiratory support in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Methods

All patients admitted to a large healthcare network with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and requiring respiratory support were eligible for inclusion. We compared patients treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive positive pressure ventilation by facemask or high flow nasal oxygen) with patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation. 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 (intensive care unit and hospital) and time-to-intubation.

Results

Over the study period, 2354 patients met inclusion criteria. Nearly half (47%) received invasive mechanical ventilation first and 53% received initial noninvasive respiratory support. There was an overall 38% in-hospital mortality (37% for invasive mechanical ventilation and 39% for noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was associated with an increased hazard of death compared to initial invasive mechanical ventilation (HR: 1.61, p < 0.0001, 95% CI: 1.33 - 1.94). However, patients on initial noninvasive respiratory support also experienced an increased hazard of leaving the hospital sooner, but the hazard ratio waned with time (HR: 0.97, p < 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.96 - 0.98).

Conclusion

These data show that the COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure initially treated with noninvasive respiratory support had an increased hazard of in-hospital death.