Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6 months after the enrollment. RESULTS: Among 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide < 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity < 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47-77] of predicted vs. 80% [71-88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53-70] vs. 80 [70-83], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6 months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 2020.

Non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, including COVID-19.

Optimal initial non-invasive management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), of both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 etiologies, has been the subject of significant discussion. Avoidance of endotracheal intubation reduces related complications, but maintenance of spontaneous breathing with intense respiratory effort may increase risks of patients' self-inflicted lung injury, leading to delayed intubation and worse clinical outcomes. High-flow nasal oxygen is currently recommended as the optimal strategy for AHRF management for its simplicity and beneficial physiological effects. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), delivered as either pressure support or continuous positive airway pressure via interfaces like face masks and helmets, can improve oxygenation and may be associated with reduced endotracheal intubation rates. However, treatment failure is common and associated with poor outcomes. Expertise and knowledge of the specific features of each interface are necessary to fully exploit their potential benefits and minimize risks. Strict clinical and physiological monitoring is necessary during any treatment to avoid delays in endotracheal intubation and protective ventilation. In this narrative review, we analyze the physiological benefits and risks of spontaneous breathing in AHRF, and the characteristics of tools for delivering NIV. The goal herein is to provide a contemporary, evidence-based overview of this highly relevant topic.

Ventilatory associated barotrauma in COVID-19 patients: A multicenter observational case control study (COVI-MIX-study).

BACKGROUND: The risk of barotrauma associated with different types of ventilatory support is unclear in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the different respiratory support strategies on barotrauma occurrence; we also sought to determine the frequency of barotrauma and the clinical characteristics of the patients who experienced this complication. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective case-control study from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 included COVID-19 patients who experienced barotrauma during hospital stay. They were matched with controls in a 1:1 ratio for the same admission period in the same ward of treatment. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression (OR) were performed to explore which factors were associated with barotrauma and in-hospital death. RESULTS: We included 200 cases and 200 controls. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 39.3% of patients in the barotrauma group, and in 20.1% of controls (p<0.001). Receiving non-invasive ventilation (C-PAP/PSV) instead of conventional oxygen therapy (COT) increased the risk of barotrauma (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.30 - 11.08, p<0.001), similarly for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.86-13.60, p<0.001). High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO), compared with COT, did not significantly increase the risk of barotrauma. Barotrauma frequency occurred in 1.00% [95% CI 0.88-1.16] of patients; these were older (p=0.022) and more frequently immunosuppressed (p=0.013). Barotrauma was shown to be an independent risk for death (OR 5.32, 95% CI 2.82-10.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: C-PAP/PSV compared with COT or HFNO increased the risk of barotrauma; otherwise HFNO did not. Barotrauma was recorded in 1.00% of patients, affecting mainly patients with more severe COVID-19 disease. Barotrauma was independently associated with mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: this case-control study was prospectively registered in clinicaltrial.gov as NCT04897152 (on 21 May 2021).

Quality of Life in COVID-Related ARDS Patients One Year after Intensive Care Discharge (Odissea Study): A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Investigating the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge is necessary to identify possible modifiable risk factors. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the HRQoL in COVID-19 critically ill patients one year after ICU discharge. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective observational study, COVID-19 patients admitted to nine ICUs from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 in Italy were enrolled. One year after ICU discharge, patients were required to fill in short-form health survey 36 (SF-36) and impact of event-revised (IES-R) questionnaire. A multivariate linear or logistic regression analysis to search for factors associated with a lower HRQoL and post-traumatic stress disorded (PTSD) were carried out, respectively. RESULTS: Among 1003 patients screened, 343 (median age 63 years [57-70]) were enrolled. Mechanical ventilation lasted for a median of 10 days [2-20]. Physical functioning (PF 85 [60-95]), physical role (PR 75 [0-100]), emotional role (RE 100 [33-100]), bodily pain (BP 77.5 [45-100]), social functioning (SF 75 [50-100]), general health (GH 55 [35-72]), vitality (VT 55 [40-70]), mental health (MH 68 [52-84]) and health change (HC 50 [25-75]) describe the SF-36 items. A median physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores were 45.9 (36.5-53.5) and 51.7 (48.8-54.3), respectively, considering 50 as the normal value of the healthy general population. In all, 109 patients (31.8%) tested positive for post-traumatic stress disorder, also reporting a significantly worse HRQoL in all SF-36 domains. The female gender, history of cardiovascular disease, liver disease and length of hospital stay negatively affected the HRQoL. Weight at follow-up was a risk factor for PTSD (OR 1.02, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The HRQoL in COVID-19 ARDS (C-ARDS) patients was reduced regarding the PCS, while the median MCS value was slightly above normal. Some risk factors for a lower HRQoL have been identified, the presence of PTSD is one of them. Further research is warranted to better identify the possible factors affecting the HRQoL in C-ARDS.

Use of High-Dose Nebulized Colistimethate in Patients with Colistin-Only Susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii VAP: Clinical, Pharmacokinetic and Microbiome Features.

(1) Background: Colistin-only susceptible (COS) Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) represents a clinical challenge in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) due to the negligible lung diffusion of this molecule and the low-grade evidence on efficacy of its nebulization. (2) Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study on 134 ICU patients with COS-AB VAP to describe the 'real life' clinical use of high-dose (5 MIU q8) aerosolized colistin, using a vibrating mesh nebulizer. Lung pharmacokinetics and microbiome features were investigated. (3) Results: Patients were enrolled during the COVID-19 pandemic with the ICU presenting a SAPS II of 42 [32-57]. At VAP diagnosis, the median PaO2/FiO2 was 120 [100-164], 40.3% were in septic shock, and 24.6% had secondary bacteremia. The twenty-eight day mortality was 50.7% with 60.4% and 40.3% rates of clinical cure and microbiological eradication, respectively. We did not observe any drug-related adverse events. Epithelial lining fluid colistin concentrations were far above the CRAB minimal-inhibitory concentration and the duration of nebulized therapy was an independent predictor of microbiological eradication (12 [9.75-14] vs. 7 [4-13] days, OR (95% CI): 1.069 (1.003-1.138), p = 0.039). (4) Conclusions: High-dose and prolonged colistin nebulization, using a vibrating mesh, was a safe adjunctive therapeutic strategy for COS-AB VAP. Its right place and efficacy in this setting warrant investigation in interventional studies.

VENTILATORY ASSOCIATED BAROTRAUMA IN COVID-19 PATIENTS: A MULTICENTER OBSERVATIONAL CASE CONTROL STUDY (COVI-MIX-STUDY)

Background The risk of barotrauma associated with different types of ventilatory support is unclear in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the different respiratory support strategies on barotrauma occurrence;we also sought to determine the frequency of barotrauma and the clinical characteristics of the patients who experienced this complication. Methods This multicentre retrospective case-control study from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 included COVID-19 patients who experienced barotrauma during hospital stay. They were matched with controls in a 1:1 ratio for the same admission period in the same ward of treatment. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression (OR) were performed to explore which factors were associated with barotrauma and in-hospital death. Results We included 200 cases and 200 controls. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 39.3% of patients in the barotrauma group, and in 20.1% of controls (p<0.001). Receiving non-invasive ventilation (C-PAP/PSV) instead of conventional oxygen therapy (COT) increased the risk of barotrauma (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.30 - 11.08, p<0.001), similarly for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.86-13.60, p<0.001). High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO), compared with COT, did not significantly increase the risk of barotrauma. Barotrauma frequency occurred in 1.00% [95% CI 0.88-1.16] of patients;these were older (p=0.022) and more frequently immunosuppressed (p=0.013). Barotrauma was shown to be an independent risk for death (OR 5.32, 95% CI 2.82-10.03, p<0.001). Conclusions C-PAP/PSV compared with COT or HFNO increased the risk of barotrauma;otherwise HFNO did not. Barotrauma was recorded in 1.00% of patients, affecting mainly patients with more severe COVID-19 disease. Barotrauma was independently associated with mortality. Trial registration this case-control study was prospectively registered in clinicaltrial.gov as NCT04897152 (on 21 May 2021).

Helmet noninvasive support for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: rationale, mechanism of action and bedside application.

INTRODUCTION: Helmet noninvasive support may provide advantages over other noninvasive oxygenation strategies in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this narrative review based on a systematic search of the literature, we summarize the rationale, mechanism of action and technicalities for helmet support in hypoxemic patients. MAIN RESULTS: In hypoxemic patients, helmet can facilitate noninvasive application of continuous positive-airway pressure or pressure-support ventilation via a hood interface that seals at the neck and is secured by straps under the arms. Helmet use requires specific settings. Continuous positive-airway pressure is delivered through a high-flow generator or a Venturi system connected to the inspiratory port of the interface, and a positive end-expiratory pressure valve place at the expiratory port of the helmet;  alternatively, pressure-support ventilation is delivered by connecting the helmet to a mechanical ventilator through a bi-tube circuit. The helmet interface allows continuous treatments with high positive end-expiratory pressure with good patient comfort. Preliminary data suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may provide physiological benefits compared to other noninvasive oxygenation strategies (conventional oxygen, facemask NIV, high-flow nasal oxygen) in non-hypercapnic patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg), possibly because higher positive end-expiratory pressure (10-15 cmH2O) can be applied for prolonged periods with good tolerability. This improves oxygenation, limits ventilator inhomogeneities, and may attenuate the potential harm of lung and diaphragm injury caused by vigorous inspiratory effort. The potential superiority of helmet support for reducing the risk of intubation has been hypothesized in small, pilot randomized trials and in a network metanalysis. CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive support represents a promising tool for the initial management of patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. Currently, the lack of confidence with this and technique and the absence of conclusive data regarding its efficacy render helmet use limited to specific settings, with expert and trained personnel. As per other noninvasive oxygenation strategies, careful clinical and physiological monitoring during the treatment is essential to early identify treatment failure and avoid delays in intubation.

Use of an innovative cuff pressure control and subglottic secretions drainage system in COVID-19 ARDS patients undergoing pronation.

We conducted a proof of concept study where Anapnoguard endotracheal tubes and its control unit were used in 15 patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anapnoguard system provides suction, venting, rinsing of subglottic space and controls cuff pressure detecting air leakage through the cuff. Alpha-amylase and pepsin levels, as oropharyngeal and gastric microaspiration markers, were assessed from 85 tracheal aspirates in the first 72 h after connection to the system. Oropharyngeal microaspiration occurred in 47 cases (55%). Episodes of gastric microaspiration were not detected. Patient positioning, either prone or supine, did not affect alpha-amylase and pepsin concentration in tracheal secretions. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rate was 40%. The use of the AG system provided effective cuff pressure control and subglottic secretions drainage. Despite this, no reduction in the incidence of VAP has been demonstrated, compared to data reported in the current COVID-19 literature. The value of this new technology is worth of being evaluated for the prevention of ventilator-associated respiratory tract infections.

Myocardial Injury Portends a Higher Risk of Mortality and Long-Term Cardiovascular Sequelae after Hospital Discharge in COVID-19 Survivors.

Background: Cardiovascular sequelae after COVID-19 are frequent. However, the predictors for their occurrence are still unknown. In this study, we aimed to assess whether myocardial injury during COVID-19 hospitalization is associated to CV sequelae and death after hospital discharge. Methods: In this prospective observational study, consecutive patients who were admitted for COVID-19 in a metropolitan COVID-19 hub in Italy, between March 2021 and January 2022, with a ≥ 1 assessment of high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) were included in the study, if they were alive at hospital discharge. Myocardial injury was defined as elevation hs-cTnI > 99th percentile of the upper reference limit. The incidence of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, including cardiovascular death, admission for acute or chronic coronary syndrome, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke/transient ischemic attack) at follow-up were the primary outcomes. Arrhythmias, inflammatory heart diseases, and/or thrombotic disorders were analyzed as well. Results: Among the 701 COVID-19 survivors (mean age 66.4 ± 14.4 years, 40.2% female), myocardial injury occurred in 75 (10.7%) patients. At a median follow-up of 270 days (IQR 165, 380), all-cause mortality (21.3% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001), MACCE (25.3% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001), arrhythmias (9.3% vs. 5.0%, p = 0.034), and inflammatory heart disease (8.0% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001) were more frequent in patients with myocardial injury compared to those without. At multivariate analysis, myocardial injury (HR 1.95 [95% CI:1.05-3.61]), age (HR 1.09 [95% CI:1.06-1.12]), and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.63 [95% CI:1.33-5.21]) were independent predictors of death. Myocardial injury (HR 3.92 [95% CI:2.07-7.42]), age (HR 1.05 [95% CI:1.02-1.08]), and diabetes (HR 2.35 [95% CI:1.25-4.43]) were independent predictors of MACCE. Conclusion: In COVID-19 survivors, myocardial injury during the hospital stay portends a higher risk of mortality and cardiovascular sequelae and could be considered for the risk stratification of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who are successfully discharged.

Diaphragm ultrasound evaluation during weaning from mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a pragmatic, cross-section, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic dysfunction is a major factor responsible for weaning failure in patients that underwent prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation for acute severe respiratory failure from COVID-19. This study hypothesizes that ultrasound measured diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) could provide corroborating information for weaning COVID-19 patients from mechanical ventilation. METHODS: This was an observational, pragmatic, cross-section, multicenter study in 6 Italian intensive care units. DTF was assessed in COVID-19 patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation from 1st March 2020 to 30th June 2021. Primary aim was to evaluate whether DTF is a predictive factor for weaning failure. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled, 25 patients failed spontaneous breathing trial (44%). Median length of invasive ventilation was 14 days (IQR 7-22). Median DTF within 24 h since the start of weaning was 28% (IQR 22-39%), RASS score (- 2 vs - 2; p = 0.031); Kelly-Matthay score (2 vs 1; p = 0.002); inspiratory oxygen fraction (0.45 vs 0.40; p = 0.033). PaO2/FiO2 ratio was lower (176 vs 241; p = 0.032) and length of intensive care stay was longer (27 vs 16.5 days; p = 0.025) in patients who failed weaning. The generalized linear regression model did not select any variables that could predict weaning failure. DTF was correlated with pH (RR 1.56 × 1027; p = 0.002); Kelly-Matthay score (RR 353; p < 0.001); RASS (RR 2.11; p = 0.003); PaO2/FiO2 ratio (RR 1.03; p = 0.05); SAPS2 (RR 0.71; p = 0.005); hospital and ICU length of stay (RR 1.22 and 0.79, respectively; p < 0.001 and p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: DTF in COVID-19 patients was not predictive of weaning failure from mechanical ventilation, and larger studies are needed to evaluate it in clinical practice further. Registered: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05019313, 24 August 2021).

Thromboelastography Profile Is Associated with Lung Aeration Assessed by Point-of-Care Ultrasound in COVID-19 Critically Ill Patients: An Observational Retrospective Study.

Background. To evaluate relationships between lung aeration assessed by lung ultrasound (LUS) with viscoelastic profiles obtained by thromboelastography (TEG) in COVID-19 respiratory failure. Methods. Retrospective analysis in a tertiary ICU in Rome, Italy. Forty invasively ventilated adults with COVID-19 underwent LUS and TEG assessment. A simplified LUS protocol consisting in scanning six areas, three per side, was adopted. A score from 0 to 3 was assigned to each area. TEG®6s was used to obtain viscoelastic hemostatic assay parameters which were compared to LUS score. Results. There was a significant inverse correlation between LUS score and static compliance of the respiratory system (Crs, rs -0.75; p < 0.001). We found a significant association between LUS and functional fibrinogen maximum amplitude (FF-MA): among 18 patients with LUS score ≤ 12, median FF-MA was 31 mm [IQR 28-39] whilst, among 22 patients with LUS score > 12, it was 46.3 mm [IQR 40-53], p = 0.0004. Median of the citrated recalcified kaolin-activated maximum amplitude (CK-MA) was 66.1 mm [64.4-68] in the LUS score ≤ 12 group, and 69.6 [68.5-70.7] when LUS score > 12, p < 0.002. Conclusions. The hypercoagulable profile as defined by elevated FF-MA and CK-MA may be associated with a low degree of lung aeration as assessed by LUS.

Remdesivir plus Dexamethasone in COVID-19: A cohort study of severe patients requiring high flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation.

INTRODUCTION: Remdesivir and Dexamethasone represent the cornerstone of therapy for critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical efficacy and safety of concomitant administration of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone (Rem-Dexa) in severe COVID-19 patients on high flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study that was performed in two medical Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of a tertiary university hospital. The clinical impact of Rem-Dexa administration in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, who required NIV or HFOT and selected on the simplified acute physiology score II, the sequential organ failure assessment score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score, was investigated. The primary outcome was 28-day intubation rate; secondary outcomes were end-of-treatment clinical improvement and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, laboratory abnormalities and clinical complications, ICU and hospital length of stay, 28-day and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: We included 132 patients and found that 28-day intubation rate was significantly lower among Rem-Dexa group (19.7% vs 48.5%, p<0.01). Although the end-of-treatment clinical improvement was larger among Rem-Dexa group (69.7% vs 51.5%, p = 0.05), the 28-day and 90-day mortalities were similar (4.5% and 10.6% vs. 15.2% and 16.7%; p = 0.08 and p = 0.45, respectively). The logistic regression and Cox-regression models showed that concomitant Rem-Dexa therapy was associated with a reduction of 28-day intubation rate (OR 0.22, CI95% 0.05-0.94, p = 0.04), in absence of laboratory abnormalities and clinical complications (p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 critically ill patients receiving HFO or NIV, 28-day intubation rate was lower in patients who received Rem-Dexa and this finding corresponded to lower end-of-treatment clinical improvement. The individual contribution of either Remdesevir or Dexamethasone to the observed clinical effect should be further investigated.

Hemodynamic response to positive end-expiratory pressure and prone position in COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Use of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning is common in patients with COVID-19-induced acute respiratory failure. Few data clarify the hemodynamic effects of these interventions in this specific condition. We performed a physiologic study to assess the hemodynamic effects of PEEP and prone position during COVID-19 respiratory failure. METHODS: Nine adult patients mechanically ventilated due to COVID-19 infection and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were studied. Respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, cardiac output, oxygen consumption, systemic and pulmonary pressures were recorded through pulmonary arterial catheterization at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O, and after prone positioning. Recruitability was assessed through the recruitment-to-inflation ratio. RESULTS: High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio in all patients (p = 0.004), and significantly decreased pulmonary shunt fraction (p = 0.012), regardless of lung recruitability. PEEP-induced increases in PaO2/FiO2 changes were strictly correlated with shunt fraction reduction (rho=-0.82, p = 0.01). From low to high PEEP, cardiac output decreased by 18 % (p = 0.05) and central venous pressure increased by 17 % (p = 0.015). As compared to supine position with low PEEP, prone positioning significantly decreased pulmonary shunt fraction (p = 0.03), increased PaO2/FiO2 (p = 0.03) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (p = 0.016), without affecting cardiac output. PaO2/FiO2 was improved by prone position also when compared to high PEEP (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS due to COVID-19, PEEP and prone position improve arterial oxygenation. Changes in cardiac output contribute to the effects of PEEP but not of prone position, which appears the most effective intervention to improve oxygenation with no hemodynamic side effects.