The Role of Noninvasive Respiratory Management in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia

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.

Descriptive account of the first use of the LeVe CPAP System, a new frugal CPAP System, in adult patients with COVID-19 Pneumonitis in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been a key treatment modality for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. Globally, the demand for CPAP outstripped the supply during the pandemic. The LeVe CPAP System was developed to provide respiratory support for treatment of COVID-19 and tailored for use in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. Prior to formal trial approval, received in November 2021, these devices were used in extremis to support critically unwell adult patients requiring non-invasive ventilatory support.

METHODS

This is a retrospective descriptive review of adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis, who were treated with advanced respiratory support (CPAP and/or high-flow nasal oxygen, HFNO) at Mengo Hospital, Uganda. Patients were treated with the LeVe CPAP System, Elisa CPAP and/or AIRVO™ HFNO. Treatment was escalated per standard local protocols for respiratory failure, and CPAP was the maximum respiratory support available. Data were collected on patient characteristics, length of time of treatment, clinical outcome, and any adverse events.

RESULTS

Overall 333 patients were identified as COVID-19 positive, 44 received CPAP ± HFNO of which 43 were included in the study. The median age was 58 years (range 28-91 years) and 58% were female. The median duration of advanced respiratory support was 7 days (range 1-18 days). Overall (all device) mortality was 49% and this was similar between those started on the LeVe CPAP System and those started non-LeVe CPAP System devices (50% vs 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

The LeVe CPAP system was the most used CPAP device during the pandemic, bringing the hospital's number of available HFNO/CPAP devices from two to 14. They were a critical resource for providing respiratory support to the sickest group of patients when no alternative devices were available. The devices appear to be safe and well-tolerated with no serious adverse events recorded. This study is unable to assess the efficacy of the LeVe CPAP System; therefore, formal comparative studies are required to inform further use.

An Australian COVID-19 respiratory care unit experience

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with a heterogeneous presentation ranging from severe pneumonitis to asymptomatic infection. International studies have demonstrated the utility of respiratory care units (RCUs) to facilitate the delivery of non-invasive ventilation techniques to patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis.

AIMS

This study aims to describe the patient characteristics, flow and outcomes of admissions to the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) COVID-19 RCU (CRCU) during its initial period of operation.

METHODS

Single-centre retrospective cohort study, all patients admitted to CRCU between 17 September and 10 December 2021 were included in this study. Patient demographics, including comorbidities and limitations of medical treatment, were analysed. Admission source and discharge destination were reviewed. Length of stay was recorded. Finally, in-hospital and CRCU mortality were analysed.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients, comprising 111 admissions, occurred during the study period with median age of 65 years (48% female). Most patients were admitted from and discharged to the ward. Twenty patients died in hospital (21%), with age, 4C score, comorbidity and presence of obstructive lung disease predicting mortality (area under the curve (AUC) 0.85, P < 0.001). Mortality was significantly higher in those over 65 years of age compared to those under 65 (P < 0.001), or those deemed not for intubation compared to those for intubation (P = 0.0019).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility of operating a CRCU within an Australian tertiary healthcare setting.

Environmental Contamination by SARS-CoV-2 During Noninvasive Ventilation in COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 from patients with COVID-19 undergoing noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in the ICU is still under investigation. This study set out to investigate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces near subjects receiving NIV in the ICU under controlled conditions (ie, use of dual-limb circuits, filters, adequate room ventilation).

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, observational study in the ICU of a tertiary teaching hospital. Four surface sampling areas, at increasing distance from subject's face, were identified; and each one was sampled at fixed intervals: 6, 12, and 24 h. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 was detected with real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) test on environmental swabs; the RT-PCR assay targeted the SARS-CoV-2 virus nucleocapsid N1 and N2 genes and the human RNase P gene as internal control.

RESULTS

In a total of 256 collected samples, none were positive for SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, whereas 21 samples (8.2%) tested positive for RNase P, thus demonstrating the presence of genetic material unrelated to SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that application of NIV in an appropriate environment and with correct precautions leads to no sign of surface environmental contamination. Accordingly, our data support the idea that use of NIV in the ICU is safe both for health care workers and for other patients.

Mallampati Score Is an Independent Predictor of Active Oxygen Therapy in Patients with COVID-19

Mallampati score has been identified and accepted worldwide as an independent predictor of difficult intubation and obstructive sleep apnea. We aimed to determine whether Mallampati score assessed on the first patient medical assessment allowed us to stratify the risk of worsening of conditions in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. A total of 493 consecutive patients admitted between 13 November 2021 and 2 January 2022 to the temporary hospital in Pyrzowice were included in the analysis. The clinical data, chest CT scan, and major, clinically relevant laboratory parameters were assessed by patient-treating physicians, whereas the Mallampati score was assessed on admission by investigators blinded to further treatment. The primary endpoints were necessity of active oxygen therapy (AOT) during hospitalization and 60-day all-cause mortality. Of 493 patients included in the analysis, 69 (14.0%) were in Mallampati I, 57 (11.6%) were in Mallampati II, 78 (15.8%) were in Mallampati III, and 288 (58.9%) were in Mallampati IV. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups, except the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (p = 0.046). Patients with Mallampati IV were at the highest risk of AOT during the hospitalization (33.0%) and the highest risk of death due to any cause at 60 days (35.0%), which significantly differed from other scores (p = 0.005 and p = 0.03, respectively). Mallampati IV was identified as an independent predictor of need for AOT (OR 3.089, 95% confidence interval 1.65−5.77, p < 0.001) but not of all-cause mortality at 60 days. In conclusion, Mallampati IV was identified as an independent predictor of AOT during hospitalization. Mallampati score can serve as a prehospital tool allowing to identify patients at higher need for AOT.

Chest X-ray Does Not Predict the Risk of Endotracheal Intubation and Escalation of Treatment in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Noninvasive Respiratory Support

Forms of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) have been widely used to avoid endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, inappropriate prolongation of NIRS may delay endotracheal intubation and worsen patient outcomes. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess whether the CARE score, a chest X-ray score previously validated in COVID-19 patients, may predict the need for endotracheal intubation and escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients requiring NIRS. From December 2020 to May 2021, we included 142 patients receiving NIRS who had a first chest X-ray available at NIRS initiation and a second one after 48–72 h. In 94 (66%) patients, the level of respiratory support was increased, while endotracheal intubation was required in 83 (58%) patients. The CARE score at NIRS initiation was not predictive of the need for endotracheal intubation (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96–1.06) or escalation of treatment (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96–1.07). In conclusion, chest X-ray severity, as assessed by the CARE score, did not allow predicting endotracheal intubation or escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients undergoing NIRS.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are important treatment approaches for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the differential impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the effects of HFNC versus NIV (interface or mode) on clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) of HFNC and NIV in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF published in English before February 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the mortality rate, and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation [ventilator-free day (VFD)].

RESULTS

In all, 23 studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 5354 patients were included. The mortality rate was higher in the NIV group than the HFNC group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.84, p = 0.0008, I2 = 60%]; however, in this subgroup, no significant difference in mortality was observed in the NIV-helmet group (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.63-2.32, p = 0.57, I2 = 0%) or NIV-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) group (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.51-1.17, p = 0.23, I2 = 65%) relative to the HFNC group. There were no differences in intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or days free from invasive mechanical ventilation (VFD) between the HFNC and NIV groups.

CONCLUSION

Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of helmet or CPAP group. Future large sample RCTs are necessary to prove our findings.

REGISTRATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022321997).