Helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients (Helmet-COVID): statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive methods of respiratory support, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), are potential strategies to prevent progression to requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to understand the utility of noninvasive respiratory support among a homogeneous cohort of patients with contemporary management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. We performed a network meta-analysis of studies evaluating the efficacy of NIV (including CPAP) and HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT), in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched in May 2023. Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used first to estimate all direct pairwise associations and the results from all studies were combined using frequentist network meta-analysis. Primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as discontinuation of HFNO, NIV, or COT despite progressive disease. Secondary outcome was mortality.

RESULTS

We included data from eight RCTs with 2302 patients, (756 [33%] assigned to COT, 371 [16%] to NIV, and 1175 [51%] to HFNO). The odds of treatment failure were similar for NIV (P=0.33) and HFNO (P=0.25), and both were similar to that for COT (reference category). The odds of mortality were similar for all three treatments (odds ratio for NIV vs COT: 1.06 [0.46-2.44] and HFNO vs COT: 0.97 [0.57-1.65]).

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and conventional oxygen therapy are comparable with regards to treatment failure and mortality in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023426495.

ELMO CPAP: an innovative type of ventilatory support for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the use of ELMO, a helmet for noninvasive ventilation created in Brazil, had a positive impact on the prognosis of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by severe COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 50 critically ill COVID-19 patients. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data were collected on ICU admission, as well as before, during, and after ELMO use. Patients were divided into two groups (success and failure) according to the outcome.

RESULTS

ELMO use improved oxygenation parameters such as Pao2, Fio2, and the Pao2/Fio2 ratio, and this contributed to a gradual reduction in Fio2, without an increase in CO2, as determined by arterial blood gas analysis. Patients in the success group had significantly longer survival (p < 0.001), as determined by the Kaplan-Meier analysis, less need for intubation (p < 0.001), fewer days of hospitalization, and a lower incidence of acute kidney injury in comparison with those in the failure group.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant improvement in oxygenation parameters, the longer survival, as reflected by the reduced need for intubation and by the mortality rate, and the absence of acute kidney injury suggest that the ELMO CPAP system is a promising tool for treating ARDS and similar clinical conditions.

Long-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support: follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared to usual respiratory support reduces 180-day mortality and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

This is a pre-planned follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID trial. In this multicenter, randomized clinical trial, adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of all enrolled patients except three who were lost at follow-up. The study outcomes were 180-day mortality, EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values, and EQ-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, non-survivors were assigned a value of 0 for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS.

RESULTS

Within 180 days, 63/159 patients (39.6%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared to 65/158 patients (41.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference - 1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.3, 9.3, p = 0.78). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the helmet noninvasive ventilation and the usual respiratory support groups did not differ in EQ-5D-5L index values (median 0.68 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], compared to 0.67 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], median difference 0.00 [95% CI - 0.32, 0.32; p = 0.91]) or EQ-VAS scores (median 70 [IQR 0, 93], compared to 70 [IQR 0, 90], median difference 0.00 (95% CI - 31.92, 31.92; p = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

Helmet noninvasive ventilation did not reduce 180-day mortality or improve HRQoL compared to usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs Usual Respiratory Support on Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The HELMET-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.

Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit: Non-Invasive Respiratory Therapy in a Sequential Protocol

The intermediate respiratory care units (IRCUs) have a pivotal role managing escalation and de-escalation between the general wards and the intensive care units (ICUs). Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, the early detection of patients that could improve on non-invasive respiratory therapies (NRTs) in IRCUs without invasive approaches is crucial to ensure proper medical management and optimize limiting ICU resources. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with survival, ICU admission and intubation likelihood in COVID-19 patients admitted to IRCUs. Observational retrospective study in consecutive patients admitted to the IRCU of a tertiary hospital from March 2020 to April 2021. Inclusion criteria: hypoxemic respiratory failure (SpO₂ ≤ 94% and/or respiratory rate ≥ 25 rpm with FiO₂ > 50% supplementary oxygen) due to acute COVID-19 infection. Demographic, comorbidities, clinical and analytical data, and medical and NRT data were collected at IRCU admission. Multivariate logistic regression models assessed factors associated with survival, ICU admission, and intubation. From 679 patients, 79 patients (12%) had an order to not do intubation. From the remaining 600 (88%), 81% survived, 41% needed ICU admission and 37% required intubation. In the IRCU, 51% required non-invasive ventilation (NIV group) and 49% did not (non-NIV group). Older age and lack of corticosteroid treatment were associated with higher mortality and intubation risk in the scheme, which could be more beneficial in severe forms. Initial NIV does not always mean worse outcomes.