Noninvasive respiratory support for COVID-19 patients: when, for whom, and how?

Noninvasive ventilation for respiratory failure: When does it work and when it does not?

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) is a positive pressure ventilation method employed across various disease processes, utilizing noninvasive interfaces such as helmets and facemasks rather than invasive methods such as endotracheal intubation. The benefits of NIV are significant in both the acute care setting, such as improving work of breathing and avoiding the need for endotracheal intubation, as well as in the chronic care setting, improving quality of life and mortality. While new guidelines broaden the application of NIV across various disease areas and introduce emerging modalities, uncertainty persists regarding the appropriate timing and circumstances for NIV utilization. We present a detailed review of the literature with up-to-date studies assessing the indications and limitations of NIV in a variety of conditions associated with acute and chronic respiratory failure. The review also summarizes the current guidelines on the use of NIV in the acute care setting. Although primarily targeted towards the acute indications of NIV, we believe this review will aid in better understanding and managing noninvasive ventilation for clinicians across both the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Effect of Respiratory Support Type and Total Duration on Weaning From Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in COVID-19 Patients

Background: We evaluated the impact of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) and invasive mechanical ventilation duration before venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) on weaning from venovenous ECMO and survival. Methods: In a retrospective single-center study, we studied subjects with COVID-19 ARDS treated with VV-ECMO. The subjects were divided and analyzed according to the cut-off of NRS, invasive ventilation, and total duration of respiratory support. Results: We identified a cut-off of NRS duration of 4 days, invasive ventilation duration of 5 days, and total respiratory support duration of 8 days. Weaning from VV-ECMO was observed in 63% (15/24) of subjects with NRS duration ≤ 4 days and in 16% (4/25) of subjects with NRS > 4 days (P = .001), in 50% (17/34) of subjects with invasive ventilation duration ≤ 5 days, in 13% (2/15) of subjects with invasive ventilation duration > 5 days (P = .02), in 68% (13/19) of subjects with total support duration < 8 days, and in 20% (6/30) of subjects with total support duration > 8 days (P = .001). The survival probability at 200 days demonstrated a statistically significant difference in NRS and total support duration comparison (P = .001 and P = .004, respectively). We did not find a statistically significant survival difference according to invasive ventilation duration (P = .13). Conclusions: In our population, the increase in NRS and total support days before ECMO could hamper weaning from VV-ECMO support. However, due to the pandemic, the small sample size, and the lack of precise data on ventilation settings, caution should be exercised in universalizing these results.

Evaluation of Effectiveness and Safety of Dexmedetomidine in non-Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Critically ill Patients: A Multicentre Cohort Study

Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly favored sedative agent in critically ill patients owing to its anxiolytic and analgesic properties, lower risk of delirium, and minimal respiratory depression. Additionally, DEX exhibits anti-inflammatory properties, which have prompted its use in managing COVID-19 patients to mitigate cytokine storm and multi-organ dysfunction. Thus, this study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of DEX use in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Method: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICUs and did not require invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Patients were categorized into two groups based on receiving DEX use within 72 h of ICU admission. The primary outcome was respiratory failure requiring invasive MV; other outcomes were considered secondary. Results: A total of 155 patients were included in the study after propensity matching. DEX did not reduce respiratory failure requiring invasive MV (HR 0.66; 95% CI (0.28, 1.53), P = .33). However, the time for invasive MV was statistically significantly shorter in the DEX group compared with the control group (beta coefficient (95%CI): - 1.05 (-2.03, -0.07), P = .03). In contrast, ICU and hospital Length of stay (LOS) were not statistically significant compared to the control group (beta coefficient 0.04 (95% CI -0.29, 0.38), P = .80, and beta coefficient - 0.03 (95% CI -0.33, 0.26), P = .81, respectively). In addition, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were similar between the two groups (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.97, 1.20, P = .14, and HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.95, 1.06, P = .90, respectively). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine did not appear to lower the risk of respiratory failure necessitating invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients. However, the mean time for invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in the DEX group. Future interventional studies are required to confirm our findings.

Awake pronation with helmet CPAP in early COVID-19 ARDS patients: effects on respiratory effort and distribution of ventilation assessed by EIT

Prone positioning with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is widely used for respiratory support in awake patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure. We aimed to assess the respiratory mechanics and distribution of ventilation in COVID-19-associated ARDS treated by CPAP in awake prone position. We studied 16 awake COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. The study protocol consisted of a randomized sequence of supine and prone position with imposed positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 and 10 cmH2O delivered by helmet CPAP. Respiratory mechanics and distribution of ventilation were assessed through esophageal pressure (PES) and electrical impedance tomography (EIT). At the end of each 20-min phase, arterial blood gas analysis was performed, and PES swing and EIT tracings were recorded for the calculation of the respiratory mechanics and regional ventilation. The patient's position had no significant effects on respiratory mechanics. EIT analysis did not detect differences among global indices of ventilation. A significant proportion of pixels in the sternal region of interest showed an increase in compliance from the supine to prone position and PaO2/FIO2 increased accordingly. The best improvement of both PaO2/FIO2 and sternal compliance was obtained in the prone position with PEEP 10 cmH2O. In the studied subjects, prone positioning during CPAP treatment raised oxygenation without improvement of "protective" ventilation or global ventilatory inhomogeneity indices. Prone positioning with higher PEEP significantly increased the compliance of sternal regions.

Outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO in Tyrol during the pandemic

INTRODUCTION

A small percentage of patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV‑2) showed severe respiratory deterioration requiring treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). During the pandemic surges availability of ECMO devices was limited and resources had to be used wisely. The aim of this analysis was to determine the incidence and outcome of venovenous (VV) ECMO patients in Tyrol, when criteria based on the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) guidelines for VV-ECMO initiation were established.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the Tyrol-CoV-ICU-Reg, which includes all patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Tyrol. Of the 13 participating departments, VV-ECMO was performed at 4 units at the University Hospital Innsbruck.

RESULTS

Overall, 37 (3.4%) of 1101 patients were treated with VV-ECMO during their ICU stay. The hospital mortality rate was approximately 40% (n = 15). Multiorgan failure due to sepsis was the most common cause of death. No significant difference in survival rates between newly initiated and experienced centers was observed. The median survival time of nonsurvivors was 27 days (interquartile range, IQR: 22-36 days) after initiation of VV-ECMO. Acute kidney injury meeting the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria occurred in 48.6%. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) was initiated in 12 (32.4%) patients after a median of 18 days (IQR: 1-26 days) after VV-ECMO start. The median length of ICU and hospital stays were 38 days (IQR: 30-55 days) and 50 days (IQR: 37-83 days), respectively.

DISCUSSION

Despite a rapidly increased demand and the resulting requirement to initiate an additional ECMO center, we could demonstrate that a structured approach with interdisciplinary collaboration resulted in favorable survival rates similar to multinational reports.

Efficacy and Safety of High PEEP NIV in COVID-19 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with high PEEP levels application in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study with data collected from 95 patients who were administered NIV as part of their treatment in the COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) at University Hospital Centre Zagreb between October 2021 and February 2022. The definite outcome was NIV failure.

RESULTS

High PEEP NIV was applied in all 95 patients; 54 (56.84%) patients could be kept solely on NIV, while 41 (43.16%) patients required intubation. ICU mortality of patients solely on NIV was 3.70%, while total ICU mortality was 35.79%. The most significant difference in the dynamic of respiratory parameters between 2 patient groups was visible on Day 3 of ICU stay: By that day, patients kept solely on NIV required significantly lower PEEP levels and had better improvement in PaO2, P/F ratio, and HACOR score.

CONCLUSION

High PEEP applied by NIV was a safe option for the initial respiratory treatment of all patients, despite the severity of ARDS. For some patients, it was also shown to be the only necessary form of oxygen supplementation.

Factors related to mortality of patients with COVID-19 who are admitted to the ICU: Prognostic mortality factors of COVID-19 patients

During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, hospital resources, particularly critical care units, were overburdened and this had a significant impact on both the therapies and the prognosis of these patients. This study aimed to identify factors and therapies that may improve prognosis and other factors associated with increased mortality. A secondary objective was to evaluate the impact that obesity had on these patients. An observational study was conducted on 482 patients aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and admitted to the Intensive Care Units of 3 national hospitals registered in the CIBERESUCICOVID database between September 2020 and March 2021. After identifying the sample profile, risk factors were analyzed, the predictive model was constructed, and crude odd ratios were calculated for each factor. Additionally, logistic regression was used to build the multivariate model adjusting for potential confounders. The final model included only the variables selected using the Backward method. A sample of 335 men (69.5%) and 145 women (30.08%) aged 61.94 ± 12.75 years with a body mass index (BMI) of 28.05 (25.7; 31.2) was obtained. A total of 113 patients received noninvasive mechanical ventilation. The most common comorbidities were: high blood pressure (51.04%), obesity (28%), diabetes mellitus (23.44%), other metabolic diseases (21.16%), chronic heart failure (18.05%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11.62%), and chronic kidney disease (10.16%). In-hospital, 3-month and 6-month post-discharge mortality in patients with BMI > 30 (n = 135) versus BMI ≤ 30 (n = 347) was significantly different (P = .06). Noninvasive mechanical ventilation failed in 42.4% of patients with BMI > 30 compared to 55% of patients with BMI ≤ 30. This study identified the factors associated with failure of mechanical ventilation. The most common comorbidities were congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease, severe liver disease, diabetes mellitus, and solid organ transplantation. In terms of ventilatory support, patients who received high-flow nasal oxygen therapy on admission had lower mortality rates. The use of renal replacement therapy was also significantly associated with higher mortality.

Multidisciplinary Consensus on the Management of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the COVID-19 Patient

Acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia often requires a comprehensive approach that includes non-pharmacological strategies such as non-invasive support (including positive pressure modes, high flow therapy or awake proning) in addition to oxygen therapy, with the primary goal of avoiding endotracheal intubation. Clinical issues such as determining the optimal time to initiate non-invasive support, choosing the most appropriate modality (based not only on the acute clinical picture but also on comorbidities), establishing criteria for recognition of treatment failure and strategies to follow in this setting (including palliative care), or implementing de-escalation procedures when improvement occurs are of paramount importance in the ongoing management of severe COVID-19 cases. Organizational issues, such as the most appropriate setting for management and monitoring of the severe COVID-19 patient or protective measures to prevent virus spread to healthcare workers in the presence of aerosol-generating procedures, should also be considered. While many early clinical guidelines during the pandemic were based on previous experience with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the landscape has evolved since then. Today, we have a wealth of high-quality studies that support evidence-based recommendations to address these complex issues. This document, the result of a collaborative effort between four leading scientific societies (SEDAR, SEMES, SEMICYUC, SEPAR), draws on the experience of 25 experts in the field to synthesize knowledge to address pertinent clinical questions and refine the approach to patient care in the face of the challenges posed by severe COVID-19 infection.

Longitudinal Assessment of ROX and HACOR Scores to Predict Non-Invasive Ventilation Failure in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia

Introduction

NIV (Non-invasive ventilation) and HFNC (High Flow nasal cannula) are being used in patients with acute respiratory failure. HACOR score has been exclusively calculated for patients on NIV, on other hand ROX index is being used for patients on HFNC. This is first study where ROX index has been used in patients on NIV to predict failure.

Aim of the study

This study investigates the comparative diagnostic performance of HACOR score and ROX index to predict NIV failure.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of non-invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients admitted between 1st April 2020 to 15th June 2021 to ICU of a tertiary care teaching hospital located in Central India. We assessed factors responsible for NIV failure, and whether these scores HACOR/ROX index have discriminative capacity to predict risk of invasive mechanical ventilation.

Results

Of the 441 patients included in the current study, 179 (40.5%) recovered, while remaining 262 (59.4%) had NIV failure. On multivariable analysis, ROX index > 4.47 was found protective for NIV-failure (OR 0.15 (95% CI 0.03-0.23; p<0.001). Age > 60 years and SOFA score were other significant independent predictors of NIV-failure. The AUC for prediction of failure rises from 0.84 to 0.94 from day 1 to day 3 for ROX index and from 0.79 to 0.92 for HACOR score in the same period, hence ROX score was non-inferior to HACOR score in current study. DeLong's test for two correlated ROC curves had insignificant difference expect day-1 (D1: 0.03 to 0.08; p=3.191e-05, D2: -0.002 to 0.02; p = 0.2671, D3: -0.003 to 0.04; p= 0.1065).

Conclusion

ROX score of 4.47 at day-3 consists of good discriminatory capacity to predict NIV failure. Considering its non-inferiority to HACOR score, the ROX score can be used in patients with acute respiratory failure who are on NIV.

Use of CPAP Ventilation in Non-ICU Wards May Influence Outcomes in Patients with Severe Respiratory COVID-19

Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 disease has significantly burdened the healthcare system, including all units of severe patient treatment. Non-intensive care units were established to rationalize the capacity within the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and to create a unit where patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) could be treated with non-invasive Continuous Positive Air Pressure (CPAP) outside the ICU. This unicentric retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of NIV Treatment in Patients of the fourth pandemic wave and how its application affects the frequency and mortality of ICU-treated patients at University Hospital Rijeka compared to earlier waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the study showcases the effect of the Patient/Nurse ratio (P/N ratio) on overall mortality in the ICU. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on two groups of patients with respiratory insufficiency in the second and third pandemic waves, treated in the COVID Respiratory Centre (CRC) (153 patients). We also reviewed a cohort of patients from the fourth pandemic wave who were initially hospitalized in a COVID-6 non-intensive unit from 1 October 2021 to 1 November 2022 (102 patients), and some of them escalated to CRC. Results: The introduction of the CPAP non-invasive ventilation method as a means of hypoxic respiratory failure treatment in non-intensive care units has decreased the strain, overall number of admissions, and CRC patient mortality. The overall fourth wave mortality was 29.4%, compared to the 58.2% overall mortality of the second and third waves. Conclusions: As a result, this has decreased CRC patient admissions and, by itself, overall mortality.

Trajectories of Host-Response Subphenotypes in Patients With COVID-19 Across the Spectrum of Respiratory Support

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 follow heterogeneous clinical trajectories, requiring different levels of respiratory support and experiencing diverse clinical outcomes. Differences in host immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection may account for the heterogeneous clinical course, but we have limited data on the dynamic evolution of systemic biomarkers and related subphenotypes. Improved understanding of the dynamic transitions of host subphenotypes in COVID-19 may allow for improved patient selection for targeted therapies.

RESEARCH QUESTION

We examined the trajectories of host-response profiles in severe COVID-19 and evaluated their prognostic impact on clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 323 inpatients with COVID-19 receiving different levels of baseline respiratory support: (1) low-flow oxygen (37%), (2) noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or high-flow oxygen (HFO; 29%), (3) invasive mechanical ventilation (27%), and (4) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (7%). We collected plasma samples on enrollment and at days 5 and 10 to measure host-response biomarkers. We classified patients by inflammatory subphenotypes using two validated predictive models. We examined clinical, biomarker, and subphenotype trajectories and outcomes during hospitalization.

RESULTS

IL-6, procalcitonin, and angiopoietin 2 persistently were elevated in patients receiving higher levels of respiratory support, whereas soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) levels displayed the inverse pattern. Patients receiving NIV or HFO at baseline showed the most dynamic clinical trajectory, with 24% eventually requiring intubation and exhibiting worse 60-day mortality than patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (67% vs 35%; P < .0001). sRAGE levels predicted NIV failure and worse 60-day mortality for patients receiving NIV or HFO, whereas IL-6 levels were predictive in all patients regardless of level of support (P < .01). Patients classified to a hyperinflammatory subphenotype at baseline (< 10%) showed worse 60-day survival (P < .0001) and 50% of them remained classified as hyperinflammatory at 5 days after enrollment.

INTERPRETATION

Longitudinal study of the systemic host response in COVID-19 revealed substantial and predictive interindividual variability influenced by baseline levels of respiratory support.

Severe Parainfluenza Viral Infection-A Retrospective Study of Adult Intensive Care Patients

There is little known about parainfluenza virus (PIV) infection in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Here, we aim to describe the characteristics, clinical course and outcomes of PIV infection in adults requiring intensive care. In this retrospective study of consecutive patients admitted to our ICU with confirmed PIV infection over a 7-year period, we report the patient characteristics, laboratory tests and prognostic scores on ICU admission. The main outcomes reported are 30-day mortality and organ support required. We included 50 patients (52% male, mean age 67.6 years). The mean PaO2/FiO2 and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios on ICU admission were 198 ± 82 mmHg and 15.7 ± 12.5. Overall, 98% of patients required respiratory support and 24% required cardiovascular support. The median length of ICU stay was 5.9 days (IQR 3.7-9.1) with a 30-day mortality of 40%. In conclusion, PIV infection in adult ICU patients is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. There were significant differences between patients who presented with primary hypoxemic respiratory failure and hypercapnic respiratory failure.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 critical care interventions in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a modeling study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 critical care intervention approaches: noninvasive (oxygen without intubation) and invasive (intubation) management in Ethiopia.

METHODS

A Markov model is used to compare the costs and outcomes for non-invasive and invasive COVID-19 clinical interventions using both primary and secondary data sources. Healthcare provider costs (recurrent and capital cost) and patient-side costs (direct and indirect) were estimated and reported in United States Dollars (US$), 2021. The outcome measure used in this analysis was DALYs averted. Both the average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were reported. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of the findings. The analysis is conducted using Tree Age pro health care software 2022.

RESULT

The average cost per patient per episode for mild/moderate, severe, noninvasive, and invasive critical management was $951, $3449, $5514, and $6500, respectively. According to the average cost-effective ratio (ACER), non-invasive management resulted in $1991 per DALY averted, while invasive management resulted in $3998 per DALY averted. Similarly, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of invasive compared to noninvasive management was $ 4948 per DALY averted.

CONCLUSION

Clinical management of critical COVID-19 cases in Ethiopia is associated with a significant financial burden. Invasive intervention is unlikely to be a cost-effective COVID-19 intervention in Ethiopia compared to noninvasive critical case management using a willingness to pay threshold of three times GDP per capita.

Barotrauma during Noninvasive Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Pneumonia Outside ICU: The Ancillary COVIMIX-2 Study

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) has been extensively used during the COVID-19 surge for patients with acute respiratory failure. However, little data are available about barotrauma during NIRS in patients treated outside the intensive care unit (ICU) setting.

METHODS

COVIMIX-2 was an ancillary analysis of the previous COVIMIX study, a large multicenter observational work investigating the frequencies of barotrauma (i.e., pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum) in adult patients with COVID-19 interstitial pneumonia. Only patients treated with NIRS outside the ICU were considered. Baseline characteristics, clinical and radiological disease severity, type of ventilatory support used, blood tests and mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

In all, 179 patients were included, 60 of them with barotrauma. They were older and had lower BMI than controls (p < 0.001 and p = 0.045, respectively). Cases had higher respiratory rates and lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001). The frequency of barotrauma was 0.3% [0.1-1.3%], with older age being a risk factor for barotrauma (OR 1.06, p = 0.015). Alveolar-arterial gradient (A-a) DO₂ was protective against barotrauma (OR 0.92 [0.87-0.99], p = 0.026). Barotrauma required active treatment, with drainage, in only a minority of cases. The type of NIRS was not explicitly related to the development of barotrauma. Still, an escalation of respiratory support from conventional oxygen therapy, high flow nasal cannula to noninvasive respiratory mask was predictive for in-hospital death (OR 15.51, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

COVIMIX-2 showed a low frequency for barotrauma, around 0.3%. The type of NIRS used seems not to increase this risk. Patients with barotrauma were older, with more severe systemic disease, and showed increased mortality.

NONINVASIVE MECHANICAL VENTILATION IN COVID-19 RELATED ACUTE RESPIRATORY FAILURE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is presented with a wide range of symptoms, from asymptomatic disease to severe and progressive interstitial pneumonia. As part of interstitial pneumonia, respiratory failure is typically presented as hypoxia and is the most common cause of hospitalization. When oxygen therapy fails, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) are used as respiratory support measures of first choice. Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) is applied in order to save intensive care unit resources and to avoid complications related to invasive mechanical ventilation. Emerging evidence has shown that the use of CPAP or NIV in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in COVID-19 reduces the need for intubation and mortality. The advantage of NIRS is the feasibility of its application on wards. NIV could be administered via a face mask or helmet interface. Helmet adheres better than mask and therefore leakage is reduced, a delivery of positive end-expiratory pressure is more accurate, and the risk of nosocomial transmission of infections is lowered. Patients on NIRS must be carefully monitored so that further respiratory deterioration is not overlooked and additional measures of care including timely intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation could be performed if needed.

A Prospective Observational Study on Short and Long-Term Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients with Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure Treated with High-Flow Nasal Cannula

(1) The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) combined with frequent respiratory monitoring in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 has been shown to reduce intubation and mechanical ventilation. (2) This prospective, single-center, observational study included consecutive adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with a high-flow nasal cannula. Hemodynamic parameters, respiratory rate, inspiratory fraction of oxygen (FiO2), saturation of oxygen (SpO2), and the ratio of oxygen saturation to respiratory rate (ROX) were recorded prior to treatment initiation and every 2 h for 24 h. A 6-month follow-up questionnaire was also conducted. (3) Over the study period, 153 of 187 patients were eligible for HFNC. Of these patients, 80% required intubation and 37% of the intubated patients died in hospital. Male sex (OR = 4.65; 95% CI [1.28; 20.6], p = 0.03) and higher BMI (OR = 2.63; 95% CI [1.14; 6.76], p = 0.03) were associated with an increased risk for new limitations at 6-months after hospital discharge. (4) 20% of patients who received HFNC did not require intubation and were discharged alive from the hospital. Male sex and higher BMI were associated with poor long-term functional outcomes.

A Dedicated Expert ECMO-Team and Strict Patient Selection Improve Survival of Patients with Severe SARS-CoV-2 ARDS Supported by VV-ECMO

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide since its first wave. Intensive care units have been under a significant amount of pressure as patients with the most severe form of the disease presented with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A proportion of them experienced refractory acute respiratory failure and had to be supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). The present retrospective study reports the experiences of our ECMO center in the management of COVID-19 patients with refractory ARDS. Patient characteristics and outcomes are presented through the different waves of the pandemic. A cohort study was conducted on patients with refractory ARDS due to COVID-19 infection who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at the Geneva University Hospital and supported with VV-ECMO between 14 March 2020 and January 2022. The VV-ECMO implementation criteria were defined according to an institutional algorithm validated by the local crisis unit of the hospital and the Swiss Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Among the 500 ARDS patients admitted to our ICU, 41 patients with a median age of 57 (52−63) years, a body mass index (BMI) of 28 (26−32) kg/m2, and a SAPS II score of 57 (47−67), and 27 (66%) of whom were men required VV-ECMO. None of the patients were vaccinated. The time of ventilation, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and mechanical ventilation (MV), and the time of MV before ECMO were 7 (4−11) days and 4 (1−7) days, respectively. The time under ECMO was 20 (10−27) days. The ICU and hospital lengths of stay were 36 (21−45) days and 45 (33−69) days, respectively. The survival rate for patients on ECMO was 59%. Comparative analysis between survivors and non-survivors highlighted that survivors had a significantly shorter ventilation duration before ECMO (NIV + MV: 5.5 (1.3−9) vs. 9 (6.5−13.5) days, p = 0.0026 and MV alone: 1.6 (0.4−5.5) vs. 5.8 (5−8) days, p < 0.0001). The management of patients on ECMO by an experienced ECMO team dedicated to this activity was associated with improved survival (78% vs. 28%, p = 0.0012). Between the first wave and the following waves, patients presented with a higher incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (100% vs. 82%, p = 0.0325) but had better survival rates (74% vs. 35%, p = 0.024). The present study suggests that both the prompt insertion of VV-ECMO to control refractory hypoxemia and the involvement of an ECMO team improve the survival of COVID-19 patients.

Interventions and outcomes of COVID-19 patients in a community hospital-A single center study comparing the first and second waves

BACKGROUND

We have had 3 coronavirus-related pandemics in the last two decades. Each has brought significant toll and with each case there was no cure. Even as vaccines have been developed for the current strain of the virus thereby increasing the prospects of bringing transmissions in communities to a minimum, lessons from this pandemic should be explored in preparation for future pandemics. Other studies have looked at differences in characteristics of patients and mortality rates between the first two waves. In our study we not only identify the differences in outcomes but also explore differences in hospital specific interventions that were implemented at Jersey City Medical Center, NJ, a community-based hospital.

AIM

The aim of this study is to assess the differences between the first two waves of the COVID -19 pandemic in terms of management and outcomes to help identify any key lessons in the handling of future pandemics. We compared the population demographics, interventions and outcomes used during the first two waves of COVID-19 in a community-based hospital.

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-center cross-sectional study including Laboratory confirmed COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen supplementation admitted at Jersey City Medical Center during the first wave (April 1 to June 30, 2020) and the second wave between (October 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021). The Chi-squared test was used to assess the relationship between categorical variables and the T- test for continuous variables. A Logistic regression model was built comparing the second to the first wave while accounting for important covariates.

RESULTS

There was a combined total of 473 patients from both waves. Patients in the first wave were older (66.17 years vs 60.38 years, p <0.01), had more comorbidities (2.75 vs 2.29, p 0.003), had more severe disease (50% vs 38.78% p of 0.002), had a longer length of stay (14.18 days vs 8.77 days, p <0.001) and were more likely to be intubated (32.49% vs 21.9 4%, p 0.01). In the univariate model, the odds of mortality in the second wave compared to the first wave was 0.63 (CI, 0.41-0.96) and 1.73 (CI, 0.65-4.66) in the fully adjusted model.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the two waves. Interventions that were noted to be significantly different between the two waves were, increased likelihood of mechanical intubation in the first wave and increased use of steroids in the second wave compared to the first.

Comparison of COVID-19 survival in relation to CPAP length of treatment and by comorbidity and transmission setting (community or hospital acquired) in a medium-sized UK hospital in 2020: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) length of treatment effect on survival of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in a medium-sized UK Hospital, and how this effect changes according to the patient's comorbidity and COVID-19 route of acquisition (community or nosocomial) during the two waves in 2020.

SETTING

The acute inpatient unit in Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust (WWL), a medium-sized NHS Trust in north-west of England.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort of all confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted in WWL during 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

1830 patients (568 first wave, 1262 s wave) with antigen confirmed COVID-19 disease and severe acute respiratory syndrome admitted between 17 March 2020 (first confirmed COVID-19 case) and 31 December 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURE

COVID-19 survival rate in all patients and survival rate in potentially hospital-acquired COVID-19 (PHA) patients were modelled using a predictor set which include comorbidities (eg, obesity, diabetes, chronic ischaemic heart disease (IHD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)), wave, age, sex and care home residency, and interventions (remdesivir, dexamethasone, CPAP, intensive care unit (ICU), intubation). Secondary outcome measure was CPAP length, which was modelled using the same predictors of the survival rate.

RESULTS

Mortality rate in the second wave was significantly lower than in the first wave (43.4% vs 28.1%, p<0.001), although for PHA COVID-19 patients mortality did not reduce, remaining at very high levels independently of wave and CPAP length. For all cohort, statistical modelling identified CPAP length (HR 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96) and women (HR 95% CI 0.71 to 0.81) were associated with improved survival, while being older age (HR 95% CI 1.02 to 1.03) admitted from care homes (HR 95% CI 2.22 to 2.39), IHD (HR 95% CI 1.13 to 1.24), CKD (HR 95% CI 1.14 to 1.25), obesity (HR 95% CI 1.18 to 1.28) and COPD-emphysema (HR 95% CI 1.18 to 1.57) were associated with reduced survival. Despite the detrimental effect of comorbidities, patients with CKD (95% CI 16% to 30% improvement in survival), IHD (95% CI 1% to 10% improvement in survival) and asthma (95% CI 8% to 30% improvement in survival) benefitted most from CPAP length, while no significant survival difference was found for obese and patients with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

The experience of an Acute Trust during the COVID-19 outbreak of 2020 is documented and indicates the importance of care home and hospitals in disease acquisition. Death rates fell between the first and second wave only for community-acquired COVID-19 patients. The fall was associated to CPAP length, especially for some comorbidities. While uncovering some risk and protective factors of mortality in COVID-19 studies, the study also unravels how little is known about PHA COVID-19 and the interaction between CPAP and some comorbidities.

Evaluation of the Prevalence of Barotrauma and Affecting Factors in Patients with COVID-19 during Follow-Up in the Intermediate Care Unit

It is known that pneumothorax (PX) and pneumomediastinum (PM) develop due to COVID-19 disease. The objective of our study was to determine the prevalence of PX/PM due to COVID-19 in the intermediate intensive care unit (IMCU) and to evaluate the factors causing barotrauma and also the clinical outcomes of these patients. A total of 283 non-intubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia followed up in the IMCU in a 1-year period were included in the study. The patients were classified as group 1 (having barotrauma) and group 2 (without barotrauma). The rate of barotrauma was 8.1% (n = 23, group 1). PX developed on the right hemithorax in 12 (70.6%) patients. Group 1 had statistically significantly higher 28-day mortality rates compared with group 2 (p = 0.014). The eosinophil and d-dimer levels of the patients in group 1 were higher, while C-reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen, and albumin levels were lower than Group 2 (p < 0.001, p = 0.017, p = 0.001, p < 0.001), and p < 0.001, respectively). The similar rates of NIMV administration in our study groups support that barotrauma is not the only mechanism in the development of PX/PM. The findings of high blood eosinophil count and low blood levels of CRP, albumin, and fibrinogen in the barotrauma group of our study might be a pathfinder for future studies.

Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and methylprednisolone and in hospital survival in severe COVID-19 pneumonia

Introduction: Severe COVID-19 pneumonia has two phases that are not mutually exclusive. Repurposed drugs target only one phase and the association of combination therapy to survival is unknown.

Objective: To determine the association of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and methylprednisolone versus methylprednisolone only to in hospital survival.

Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort of patients admitted for severe covid-19 in 13 hospitals in New Jersey, United States from March–June 2020. Propensity score match with 11 variables was constructed between those who received no methylprednisolone and methylprednisolone. Multivariate Cox regression was used for risk of in hospital mortality.

Measurements and main results: There were 759 patients, 380 in no methylprednisolone and 379 with methylprednisolone. Multivariate Cox regression shows that methylprednisolone, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin had prolonged survival compared to methylprednisolone alone [HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.22,0.91 p < 0.03)]. In patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, those who also received high dose methylprednisolone were associated with worse survival compared to those who received low dose methylprednisolone (HR = 1.642; 95% CI 1.053 to 2.562; p = 0.0287). Nursing home residents [HR 2.77 (95% CI 1.67, 4.59 p < 0.0001)], coronary artery disease [HR 2.93 (95% CI 1.31, 3.15 p = 0.001), and invasive mechanical ventilation [HR 3.02 (95% CI 1.71,5.34 p = 0.0001)] were independently associated with worse survival.

Conclusion: Combination therapy was associated with improved survival compared to monotherapy. However, nursing home residents, coronary artery disease, and mechanical ventilation were independently associated with mortality. Larger randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm conclusions.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Airway and resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review provides emergency clinicians with a focused update of the resuscitation and airway management of COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Patients with COVID-19 and septic shock should be resuscitated with buffered/balanced crystalloids. If hypotension is present despite intravenous fluids, vasopressors including norepinephrine should be initiated. Stress dose steroids are recommended for patients with severe or refractory septic shock. Airway management is the mainstay of initial resuscitation in patients with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS should be managed similarly to those ARDS patients without COVID-19. Clinicians should not delay intubation if indicated. In patients who are more clinically stable, physicians can consider a step-wise approach as patients' oxygenation needs escalate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are recommended over elective intubation. Prone positioning, even in awake patients, has been shown to lower intubation rates and improve oxygenation. Strategies consistent with ARDSnet can be implemented in this patient population, with a goal tidal volume of 4-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight and targeted plateau pressures <30 cm H₂O. Limited data support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NBMA), recruitment maneuvers, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

CONCLUSION

This review presents a concise update of the resuscitation strategies and airway management techniques in patients with COVID-19 for emergency medicine clinicians.

The HACOR Score Predicts Worse in-Hospital Prognosis in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) is widely used in COVID-19 patients, although high rates of NIRS failure are reported. Early detection of NIRS failure and promptly defining the need for intubation are crucial for the management of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). We tested the ability of the HACOR score&cedil; a scale based on clinical and laboratory parameters, to predict adverse outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with ARF. Four hundred patients were categorized according to high (>5) or low (≤5) HACOR scores measured at baseline and 1 h after the start of NIRS treatment. The association between a high HACOR score and either in-hospital death or the need for intubation was evaluated. NIRS was employed in 161 patients. Forty patients (10%) underwent intubation and 98 (25%) patients died. A baseline HACOR score > 5 was associated with the need for intubation or in-hospital death in the whole population (HR 4.3; p < 0.001), in the subgroup of patients who underwent NIRS (HR 5.2; p < 0.001) and in no-NIRS subgroup (HR 7.9; p < 0.001). In the NIRS subgroup, along with the baseline HACOR score, also 1-h HACOR score predicted NIRS failure (HR 2.6; p = 0.039). In conclusion, the HACOR score is a significant predictor of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related ARF.

Effect of High Altitude on the Survival of COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Unit: A Cohort Study

Purpose: The effect of high altitude ( ≥ 1500 m) and its potential association with mortality by COVID-19 remains controversial. We assessed the effect of high altitude on the survival/discharge of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission for mechanical ventilation compared to individuals treated at sea level. Methods: A retrospective cohort multi-center study of consecutive adults patients with a positive RT-PCR test for COVID-19 who were mechanically ventilated between March and November 2020. Data were collected from two sea-level hospitals and four high-altitude hospitals in Ecuador. The primary outcome was ICU and hospital survival/discharge. Survival analysis was conducted using semi-parametric Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of the study population (n = 670), 35.2% were female with a mean age of 58.3 ± 12.6 years. On admission, high-altitude patients were more likely to be younger (57.2 vs. 60.5 years old), presented with less comorbidities such as hypertension (25.9% vs. 54.9% with p-value <.001) and diabetes mellitus (20.5% vs. 37.2% with p-value <.001), less probability of having a capillary refill time > 3 sec (13.7% vs. 30.1%, p-value <.001), and less severity-of-illness condition (APACHE II score, 17.5 ± 8.1 vs. 20 ± 8.2, p < .01). After adjusting for key confounders high altitude is associated with significant higher probabilities of ICU survival/discharge (HR: 1.74 [95% CI: 1.46-2.08]) and hospital survival/discharge (HR: 1.35 [95% CI: 1.18-1.55]) than patients treated at sea level. Conclusions: Patients treated at high altitude at any time point during the study period were 74% more likely to experience ICU survival/discharge and 35% more likely to experience hospital survival/discharge than to the sea-level group. Possible reasons for these findings are genetic and physiological adaptations due to exposure to chronic hypoxia.