Experience with high frequency oscillation ventilation during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in Australia and New Zealand

Management of Severe Influenza

Influenza infection causes severe illness in 3 to 5 million people annually, with up to an estimated 650,000 deaths per annum. As such, it represents an ongoing burden to health care systems and human health. Severe acute respiratory infection can occur, resulting in respiratory failure requiring intensive care support. Herein we discuss diagnostic approaches, including development of CLIA-waived point of care tests that allow rapid diagnosis and treatment of influenza. Bacterial and fungal coinfections in severe influenza pneumonia are associated with worse outcomes, and we summarize the approach and treatment options for diagnosis and treatment of bacterial and Aspergillus coinfection. We discuss the available drug options for the treatment of severe influenza, and treatments which are no longer supported by the evidence base. Finally, we describe the supportive management and ventilatory approach to patients with respiratory failure as a result of severe influenza in the intensive care unit.

Critical care management of adults with community-acquired severe respiratory viral infection

With the expanding use of molecular assays, viral pathogens are increasingly recognized among critically ill adult patients with community-acquired severe respiratory illness; studies have detected respiratory viral infections (RVIs) in 17-53% of such patients. In addition, novel pathogens including zoonotic coronaviruses like the agents causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019 nCoV) are still being identified. Patients with severe RVIs requiring ICU care present typically with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Oseltamivir is the most widely used neuraminidase inhibitor for treatment of influenza; data suggest that early use is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients with influenza. At present, there are no antiviral therapies of proven efficacy for other severe RVIs. Several adjunctive pharmacologic interventions have been studied for their immunomodulatory effects, including macrolides, corticosteroids, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, sirolimus, statins, anti-influenza immune plasma, and vitamin C, but none is recommended at present in severe RVIs. Evidence-based supportive care is the mainstay for management of severe respiratory viral infection. Non-invasive ventilation in patients with severe RVI causing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and pneumonia is associated with a high likelihood of transition to invasive ventilation. Limited existing knowledge highlights the need for data regarding supportive care and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy that is specific for critically ill patients with severe RVI. There is a need for more pragmatic and efficient designs to test different therapeutics both individually and in combination.

To ventilate, oscillate, or cannulate?

Ventilatory management of acute respiratory distress syndrome has evolved significantly in the last few decades. The aims have shifted from optimal gas transfer without concern for iatrogenic risks to adequate gas transfer while minimizing lung injury. This change in focus, along with improved ventilator and multiorgan system management, has resulted in a significant improvement in patient outcomes. Despite this, a number of patients develop hypoxemic respiratory failure refractory to lung-protective ventilation (LPV). The intensivist then faces the dilemma of either persisting with LPV using adjuncts (neuromuscular blocking agents, prone positioning, recruitment maneuvers, inhaled nitric oxide, inhaled prostacyclin, steroids, and surfactant) or making a transition to rescue therapies such as high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) when both these modalities are at their disposal. The lack of quality evidence and potential harm reported in recent studies question the use of HFOV as a routine rescue option. Based on current literature, the role for venovenous (VV) ECMO is probably sequential as a salvage therapy to ensure ultraprotective ventilation in selected young patients with potentially reversible respiratory failure who fail LPV despite neuromuscular paralysis and prone ventilation. Given the risk profile and the economic impact, future research should identify the patients who benefit most from VV ECMO. These choices may be further influenced by the emerging novel extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal devices that can compliment LPV. Given the heterogeneity of acute respiratory distress syndrome, each of these modalities may play a role in an individual patient. Future studies comparing LPV, HFOV, and VV ECMO should not only focus on defining the patients who benefit most from each of these therapies but also consider long-term functional outcomes.

High Frequency Oscillation in the Adult Intensive Care Unit. Nearly Mainstream?

High frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) was first described in 1959. It has had variable uptake in critical care with greater use in neonatal and paediatric intensive care units (ICU) than in adults1. In this issue, Boots et al2 describe the use of HFOV across a wide spectrum of patients with severe respiratory failure due to pandemic H1N1 influenza. Units from across Australia and New Zealand contributed data regarding patients admitted during the pandemic. The fact that there is an established network and organisational structure for the study of intensive care outcomes in Australia and New Zealand facilitated the rapid mobilisation of resources to gather data on the intensive care effects of the pandemic, and those involved should be congratulated. Other data on the impact of pandemic H1N1 on Australian ICUs in 2009 have already been published3.