Efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in elderly patients with acute respiratory failure.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in elderly patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) not due to COVID-19, refractory to treatment with conventional oxygen therapy and/or intolerant to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and without criteria for admission to intensive care units (ICU). METHODS: Prospective observational study of patients with ARF treated with HFNC who presented clinical and arterial blood gas deterioration after 24 h of medical treatment and oxygenation by conventional systems. The degree of dyspnoea, gas exchange parameters (arterial O2 pressure/inspired O2 fraction ratio (PaO2/FiO2); oxygen saturation measured by oximetry/ inspired fraction of oxygen (Sp02/Fi02), ROX index), degree of patient tolerance and mortality were evaluated. These were measured at discharge from the emergency department (ED), 24 h after treatment with conventional oxygenation and 60, 120 min and 24 h after initiation of HFNC. The results were analyzed for all patients as a whole and for patients with hypercapnia (arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) < 45 mmHg) separately. RESULTS: 200 patients were included in the study between November 2019 and November 2020, with a mean age of 83 years, predominantly women (61.9%), obese (Body Mass Index (BMI) 31.1), with high comorbidity (Charlson index 4) and mild-moderate degree of dependence (Barthel 60). A number of 128 patients (64%) were hypercapnic. None had respiratory acidosis (pH 7.39). Evaluation at 60 min, 120 min and 24 h showed significant improvement in all patients and in the subgroup of hypercapnic patients with respect to baseline parameters in respiratory rate (RR), dyspnoea, ROX index, PaO2/FiO2, SpO2/FiO2 and patient comfort. No changes in PaCO2 or level of consciousness were observed. HFNC was well tolerated. Ten patients (5%) died due to progression of the disease causing ARF. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC is an effective and safe alternative in elderly patients with ARF not due to COVID-19, refractory to treatment with conventional oxygen therapy and/or intolerant to NIV or CPAP and without criteria for admission to ICU.

Effective fast-track ambulatory care pathway for patients with COVID-19 at risk for poor outcome: the COVID-A2R model in a hospital emergency department

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a care pathway (Spanish acronym, COVID-A2R) through which patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were referred by a hospital emergency department (ED) for fast-track in-person outpatient clinic care if they did not have respiratory insufficiency but were at high risk for complications and poor outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients referred to the COVID-A2R pathway after being diagnosed with COVID-19 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay in a tertiary care hospital ED between January 7 and February 17, 2021. The inclusion criteria were 1) absence of pneumonia but presence of serious comorbidity and/or elevated biomarkers of inflammation, and 2) pneumonia with or without elevated inflammatory markers but without respiratory insufficiency. The main outcome was need for an emergency department revisit with hospital admission and time from ED evaluation to hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were the number of COVID-A2R visits and the potential economic impact. RESULTS: We included 278 patients with a median age of 57 years (57.9% men) and a median Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1. The median time since onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 4-11 days). Pneumonia was diagnosed in 71.8%, and 64.7% required only 1 in-person visit in the COVID-A2R pathway. No revisits to the ED were needed by 87.8% (83.4%-91.1%) of the patients. Of the 34 patients who were hospitalized, 88.2% were admitted within 5 days. The COVID-A2R model potentially saved 1708 days of hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The fast-track ambulatory care model was effective after emergency department discharge of patients with COVID-19 without respiratory insufficiency but with clinical or laboratory indicators of risk for poor outcome. OBJETIVO: Evaluar la efectividad de un modelo asistencial basado en la derivación desde el servicio de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) a una consulta presencial precoz de alta resolución (COVID-A2R), para pacientes con infección por SARS-CoV-2 sin insuficiencia respiratoria, pero con factor de riesgo de complicación/deterioro clínico. METODO: Cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes remitidos por COVID-19 (RT-PCR) desde el SUH de un hospital terciario a COVID-A2R (7 de enero - 17 de febrero de 2021). Los criterios de inclusión son presencia de alta comorbilidad y elevación de biomarcadores inflamatorios en pacientes sin neumonía, o la presencia de neumonía con elevación de biomarcadores inflamatorios sin insuficiencia respiratoria. La variable de resultado principal fue el no requerimiento de revisita en el SUH con ingreso hospitalario y su distribución temporal. Los objetivos secundarios son la frecuentación en COVID-A2R y el impacto económico potencial. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 278 pacientes, edad mediana de 57 años, 57,9% hombres e índice de Charlson de 1. Consultaron en el SUH tras 7 (4-11) días de clínica y un 71,8% de los casos presentaban neumonía. El 64,7% de los pacientes requirió una visita única en COVID-A2R. No se produjo una revisita a urgencias con ingreso en el 87,8% (83,4-91,1) de los pacientes. De los 34 pacientes que ingresaron, el 88,2% lo hizo en menos de 5 días. El ahorro potencial del modelo fue de 1.708 días de ingreso hospitalario. CONCLUSIONES: Un modelo asistencial ambulatorio con una consulta de alta resolución tras el alta de urgencias es efectivo para pacientes con COVID-19 sin insuficiencia respiratoria con marcadores clínicos o analíticos de evolución desfavorable.