ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: For COVID-19-related respiratory failure, noninvasive respiratory assistance via a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), helmet, and face-mask noninvasive ventilation is used. However, which of these options is most effective is yet to be determined. This study aimed to compare the three techniques of noninvasive respiratory support and to determine the superior technique. DESIGN: A randomized control trial with permuted block randomization of nine cases per block for each parallel, open-labeled arm. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Adult patients with COVID-19 with a Pao2/Fio2 ratio of less than 300, admitted between February 4, 2021, and August 9, 2021, to three tertiary centers in Oman, were studied. INTERVENTIONS: This study included three interventions: HFNC (n = 47), helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP; n = 52), and face-mask CPAP (n = 52). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The endotracheal intubation rate and mortality at 28 and 90 days were measured as the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Of the 159 randomized patients, 151 were analyzed. The median age was 52 years, and 74% were men. The endotracheal intubation rates were 44%, 45%, and 46% (p = 0.99), and the median intubation times were 7.0, 5.5, and 4.5 days (p = 0.11) in the HFNC, face-mask CPAP, and helmet CPAP, respectively. In comparison to face-mask CPAP, the relative risk of intubation was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.63-1.49) for HFNC and 1.0 (95% CI 0.66-1.51) for helmet CPAP. The mortality rates were 23%, 32%, and 38% at 28 days (p = 0.24) and 43%, 38%, and 40% (p = 0.89) at 90 days for HFNC, face-mask CPAP, and helmet CPAP, respectively. The trial was stopped prematurely because of a decline in cases. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory trial found no difference in intubation rate and mortality among the three intervention groups for the COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure; however, more evidence is needed to confirm these findings as the trial was aborted prematurely.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Identifying the immune cells involved in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease progression and the predictors of poor outcomes is important to manage patients adequately. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study enrolled 48 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a tertiary hospital in Oman and 53 non-hospitalized patients with confirmed mild COVID-19. RESULTS: Hospitalized patients were older (58 years vs 36 years, P < 0.001) and had more comorbid conditions such as diabetes (65% vs 21% P < 0.001). Hospitalized patients had significantly higher inflammatory markers (P < 0.001): C-reactive protein (114 vs 4 mg/l), interleukin 6 (IL-6) (33 vs 3.71 pg/ml), lactate dehydrogenase (417 vs 214 U/l), ferritin (760 vs 196 ng/ml), fibrinogen (6 vs 3 g/l), D-dimer (1.0 vs 0.3 µg/ml), disseminated intravascular coagulopathy score (2 vs 0), and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (4 vs 1.1) (P < 0.001). On multivariate regression analysis, statistically significant independent early predictors of intensive care unit admission or death were higher levels of IL-6 (odds ratio 1.03, P = 0.03), frequency of large inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) (odds ratio 1.117, P = 0.010), and frequency of circulating naïve CD4+ T cells (CD27+CD28+CD45RA+CCR7+) (odds ratio 0.476, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: IL-6, the frequency of large inflammatory monocytes, and the frequency of circulating naïve CD4 T cells can be used as independent immunological predictors of poor outcomes in COVID-19 patients to prioritize critical care and resources.