ABSTRACT
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the principal cause of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation and death in severe COVID-19 infection. Nearly half of intubated patients with COVID-19 eventually die. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) and Noninvasive Ventilation (NIV) constitute valuable tools to avert endotracheal intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who do not respond to conventional oxygen treatment. Sparing Intensive Care Unit beds and reducing intubation-related complications may save lives in the pandemic era. The main drawback of HFNO and/or NIV is intubation delay. Cautious selection of patients with severe hypoxemia due to COVID-19 disease, close monitoring and appropriate employment and titration of HFNO and/or NIV can increase the rate of success and eliminate the risk of intubation delay. At the same time, all precautions to protect the healthcare personnel from viral transmission should be taken. In this review, we summarize the evidence supporting the application of HFNO and NIV in severe COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, analyse the risks associated with their use and provide a path for their proper implementation.
ABSTRACT
Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a helpful intervention in patients with severe refractory hypoxemia either because mechanical ventilation cannot ensure adequate oxygenation or because lung protective ventilation is not feasible. Since ECMO is a highly invasive procedure with several, potentially devastating complications and its implementation is complex and expensive, simpler and less invasive therapeutic options should be first exploited. Low tidal volume and driving pressure ventilation, prone position, neuromuscular blocking agents and individualized ventilation based on transpulmonary pressure measurements have been demonstrated to successfully treat the vast majority of mechanically ventilated patients with severe hypoxemia. Veno-venous ECMO has a place in the small portion of severely hypoxemic patients in whom these strategies fail. A combined analysis of recent ARDS trials revealed that ECMO was used in only 2.15% of patients (n = 145/6736). Nevertheless, ECMO use has sharply increased in the last decade, raising questions regarding its thoughtful use. Such a policy could be harmful both for patients as well as for the ECMO technique itself. This narrative review attempts to describe together the practical approaches that can be offered to the sickest patients before going to ECMO, as well as the rationale and the limitations of ECMO. The benefit and the drawbacks associated with ECMO use along with a direct comparison with less invasive therapeutic strategies will be analyzed.