Management and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted in a newly created ICU and an expert ICU, a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly increased the inflow of patients requiring intensive care units (ICU). French health institutions responded by a twofold capacity increase with temporary upgraded beds, supplemental beds in pre-existing ICUs, or newly created units (New-ICU). We aimed to compare outcomes according to admission in expert pre-existing ICUs or in New-ICU.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective observational study was conducted in two 20-bed expert ICUs of a University Hospital (Expert-ICU) and in one 16-bed New-ICU in a private clinic managed respectively by 3 and 2 physicians during daytime and by one physician during the night shift. All consecutive adult patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure admitted after centralized regional management by a dedicated crisis cell were included. The primary outcome was 180-day mortality. Propensity score matching and restricted cubic spline for predicted mortality over time were performed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 165 and 176 patients were enrolled in Expert-ICU and New-ICU respectively, 162 (98%) and 157 (89%) patients were analyzed. The unadjusted 180-day mortality was 30.8% in Expert-ICU and 28.7% in New-ICU, (log-rank test, p =  0.7). After propensity score matching, 123 pairs (76 and 78%) of patients were matched, with no significant difference in mortality (32% vs. 32%, OR 1.00 [0.89; 1.12], p = 1). Adjusted predicted mortality decreased over time (p < 0.01) in both Expert-ICU and New-ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

In COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, hospitalization in a new ICU was not associated with mortality at day 180.

Personalized Respiratory Support in ARDS: A Physiology-to-Bedside Review

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide, and while no specific etiologic interventions have been shown to improve outcomes, noninvasive and invasive respiratory support strategies are life-saving interventions that allow time for lung recovery. However, the inappropriate management of these strategies, which neglects the unique features of respiratory, lung, and chest wall mechanics may result in disease progression, such as patient self-inflicted lung injury during spontaneous breathing or by ventilator-induced lung injury during invasive mechanical ventilation. ARDS characteristics are highly heterogeneous; therefore, a physiology-based approach is strongly advocated to titrate the delivery and management of respiratory support strategies to match patient characteristics and needs to limit ARDS progression. Several tools have been implemented in clinical practice to aid the clinician in identifying the ARDS sub-phenotypes based on physiological peculiarities (inspiratory effort, respiratory mechanics, and recruitability), thus allowing for the appropriate application of personalized supportive care. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of noninvasive and invasive respiratory support strategies, as well as discuss how identifying ARDS sub-phenotypes in daily practice can help clinicians to deliver personalized respiratory support and potentially improve patient outcomes.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Standard Oxygen in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The evidence regarding benefits of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19 is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of HFNC in comparison with standard oxygen therapy on the frequency of endotracheal intubation at 28 d in subjects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

A retrospective, age- and sex-matched-paired, cohort study was conducted in subjects with moderate-to-severe AHRF. Intervention group was treated with HFNC, and control group was treated with standard oxygen therapy. Baseline characteristics and clinical evolution were analyzed. Mantel-Haenszel test was used for categorical variables. Paired samples Wilcoxon test was used for quantitative variables. Multivariate analysis was performed using conditional multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Eighty-four subjects were included. The median time from admission to progression of oxygen therapy to FIO2 ≥ 0.5 or HFNC was 1 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-3) d. PaO2 /FIO2 at the time of oxygen therapy progression showed a median of 150.5 (IQR 100.0-170.0) for the entire sample and was lower in HFNC group compared with control group (median 135 [IQR 96-162] vs median 158 [IQR 132-174], respectively, P = .02). Endotracheal intubation at 28 d was observed in 54.8% HFNC and 73.8% standard oxygen (unadjusted odds ratio 0.38 [95% CI 0.13-1.07], P = .069). In the multivariate analysis, presence of dyspnea at hospital admission, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and PaO2 /FIO2 at time of progression of oxygen therapy to FIO2 ≥ 0.5 was identified as confounding factors for the association between the intervention group and the outcome. Use of HFNC was not an independent predictor of endotracheal intubation frequency after adjusting confounders (odds ratio 0.26 [95% CI 0.04-1.51], P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, HFNC therapy in subjects with AHRF secondary to COVID-19 was not an independent predictor of endotracheal intubation, compared with standard oxygen therapy, after adjusting for confounders.

Use of high flow nasal cannula in patients with acute respiratory failure in general wards under intensivists supervision: a single center observational study

BACKGROUND

Few data exist on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) admitted to general wards.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively evaluate feasibility and safety of HFNC in general wards under the intensivist-supervision and after specific training.

METHODS

Patients with ARF (dyspnea, respiratory rate-RR > 25/min, 150 < PaO₂/FiO₂ < 300 mmHg during oxygen therapy) admitted to nine wards of an academic hospital were included. Gas-exchange, RR, and comfort were assessed before HFNC and after 2 and 24 h of application.

RESULTS

150 patients (81 male, age 74 [60-80] years, SOFA 4 [2-4]), 123 with de-novo ARF underwent HFNC with flow 60 L/min [50-60], FiO₂ 50% [36-50] and temperature 34 °C [31-37]. HFNC was applied a total of 1399 days, with a median duration of 7 [3-11] days. No major adverse events or deaths were reported. HFNC did not affect gas exchange but reduced RR (25-22/min at 2-24 h, p < 0.001), and improved Dyspnea Borg Scale (3-1, p < 0.001) and comfort (3-4, p < 0.001) after 24 h. HFNC failed in 20 patients (19.2%): 3 (2.9%) for intolerance, 14 (13.4%) escalated to NIV/CPAP in the ward, 3 (2.9%) transferred to ICU. Among these, one continued HFNC, while the other 2 were intubated and they both died. Predictors of HFNC failure were higher Charlson's Comorbidity Index (OR 1.29 [1.07-1.55]; p = 0.004), higher APACHE II Score (OR 1.59 [1.09-4.17]; p = 0.003), and cardiac failure as cause of ARF (OR 5.26 [1.36-20.46]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In patients with mild-moderate ARF admitted to general wards, the use of HFNC after an initial training and daily supervision by intensivists was feasible and seemed safe. HFNC was effective in improving comfort, dyspnea, and respiratory rate without effects on gas exchanges. Trial registration This is a single-centre, noninterventional, retrospective analysis of clinical data.

COVID-19 Pneumonia and ROX index: Time to set a new threshold for patients admitted outside the ICU

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is used to treat acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) even outside the ICU and the ROX index (pulse oximetry/fraction of inspired oxygen/respiratory rate) may predict HFNC failure.

Objective

The purpose of this investigation was therefore to verify whether the ROX index is an accurate predictor of HFNC failure for COVID-19 patients treated outside the intensive care unit (ICU) and to evaluate the validity of the previously suggested threshold.

Design

Multicenter study. Retrospective observational analysis of prospectively collected data.

Setting

3 centres specialized in non-invasive respiratory support (Buenos Aires, Argentina; Bolzano and Treviso, Italy). Patients treated outside the ICU were analysed

Measurements

The variables to calculate the ROX index were collected during the first day of therapy at 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours and then recorded every 24 hours. HFNC failure was defined as escalation of respiratory support to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death.

Main results

A total of 35 (29%) patients failed HFNC and required intubation. ROC analysis identified the 12-hour ROX index as the best predictor of intubation with an AUC of 0.7916[CI 95% 0.6905-0.8927] and the best threshold to be 5.99[Specificity 96% Sensitivity 62%]. In the survival analysis, a ROX value <5.99 was associated with an increased risk of failure (p = 0008 log – rank test). The threshold of 4,9 identified by Roca as the best predictor in non-COVID patients, was not able to discriminate between success and failure (p = 0.4 log-rank test) in our patients.

Conclusions

ROX index may be useful in guiding the clinicians in their decision to intubate patients, especially in patients with moderate ARF, treated therefore outside the ICU. Indeed, it also demonstrates a different threshold value than reported for non-COVID patients, possibly related to the different mechanisms of hypoxia.