Comparison of high-flow nasal therapy, noninvasive ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure on outcomes in critically ill patients admitted for COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: The optimal first-line noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) to improve outcome in patients affected by COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU is still debated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in 7 French ICUs, including all adults admitted between July and December 2020 with documented SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 <300 mmHg), and treated with either high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) alone, noninvasive ventilation alone or in combination with HFNT (NIV), or continuous positive airway pressure alone or in combination with HFNT (CPAP). The primary outcome was NIRS failure at day 28, defined as the need for endotracheal intubation (ETI) or death without ETI. RESULTS: Among the 355 patients included, 160 (45%) were treated with HFNT alone, 115 (32%) with NIV and 80 (23%) with CPAP. The primary outcome occurred in 65 (41%), 69 (60%), and 25 (31%) patients among those treated with HFNT alone, NIV, and CPAP, respectively (P<0.001). After univariate analysis, patients treated with CPAP had a trend for a lower incidence of the primary outcome, whereas patients treated with NIV had a significant higher incidence of the primary outcome, both compared to those treated with HFNT alone (unadjusted Hazard ratio 0.67; 95% CI [0.42-1.06], and 1.58; 95% CI [1.12-2.22]; P=0.09 and 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 pneumonia and managed with NIRS, the outcome seems to differ according to the initial chosen strategy. Prospective randomized controlled studies are warranted to identify the optimal strategy.