High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled trial.

RATIONALE: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) could prevent escalation of respiratory support in this patient population. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤92% who required oxygen therapy were randomised to HFNO or COT. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support (ie, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. Among secondary outcomes, clinical recovery was defined as the improvement in oxygenation (SpO2 ≥96% with fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤30% or partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide/FiO2 ratio >300 mm Hg). RESULTS: Among 364 randomised patients, 55 (30.3%) of 181 patients assigned to HFNO and 70 (38.6%) of 181 patients assigned to COT underwent escalation of respiratory support, with no significant difference between groups (absolute risk difference -8.2% (95% CI -18% to +1.4%); RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.05); p=0.09). There was no significant difference in clinical recovery (69.1% vs 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI -1.5% to +18.0%), RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.32)), intensive care unit admission (7.7% vs 11.0%, absolute risk difference -3.3% (95% CI -9.3% to +2.6%)), and in hospital length of stay (11 (IQR 8-17) vs 11 (IQR 7-20) days, absolute risk difference -1.0% (95% CI -3.1% to +1.1%)). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the use of HFNO did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04655638.

Higher mortality and intubation rate in COVID-19 patients treated with noninvasive ventilation compared with high-flow oxygen or CPAP.

The effectiveness of noninvasive respiratory support in severe COVID-19 patients is still controversial. We aimed to compare the outcome of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow oxygen administered via nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), initiated outside the intensive care unit (ICU) in 10 university hospitals in Catalonia, Spain. We recruited 367 consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years who were treated with HFNC (155, 42.2%), CPAP (133, 36.2%) or NIV (79, 21.5%). The main outcome was intubation or death at 28 days after respiratory support initiation. After adjusting for relevant covariates and taking patients treated with HFNC as reference, treatment with NIV showed a higher risk of intubation or death (hazard ratio 2.01; 95% confidence interval 1.32-3.08), while treatment with CPAP did not show differences (0.97; 0.63-1.50). In the context of the pandemic and outside the intensive care unit setting, noninvasive ventilation for the treatment of moderate to severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 resulted in higher mortality or intubation rate at 28 days than high-flow oxygen or CPAP. This finding may help physicians to choose the best noninvasive respiratory support treatment in these patients.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04668196.

Non-invasive Respiratory Support in COVID-19: A Narrative Review.

Acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia may require a variety of non-pharmacological strategies in addition to oxygen therapy to avoid endotracheal intubation. The response to all these strategies, which include high nasal flow, continuous positive pressure, non-invasive ventilation, or even prone positioning in awake patients, can be highly variable depending on the predominant phenotypic involvement. Deciding when to replace conventional oxygen therapy with non-invasive respiratory support, which to choose, the role of combined methods, definitions, and attitudes toward treatment failure, and improved case improvement procedures are directly relevant clinical questions for the daily care of critically ill COVID-19 patients. The experience accumulated after more than a year of the pandemic should lead to developing recommendations that give answers to all these questions.

Integrated 3D printing solution to mitigate shortages of airway consumables and personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To cope with shortages of equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we established a nonprofit end-to-end system to identify, validate, regulate, manufacture, and distribute 3D-printed medical equipment. Here we describe the local and global impact of this system. METHODS: Together with critical care experts, we identified potentially lacking medical equipment and proposed solutions based on 3D printing. Validation was based on the ISO 13485 quality standard for the manufacturing of customized medical devices. We posted the design files for each device on our website together with their technical and printing specifications and created a supply chain so that hospitals from our region could request them. We analyzed the number/type of items, petitioners, manufacturers, and catalogue views. RESULTS: Among 33 devices analyzed, 26 (78·8%) were validated. Of these, 23 (88·5%) were airway consumables and 3 (11·5%) were personal protective equipment. Orders came from 19 (76%) hospitals and 6 (24%) other healthcare institutions. Peak production was reached 10 days after the catalogue was published. A total of 22,135 items were manufactured by 59 companies in 18 sectors; 19,212 items were distributed to requesting sites during the busiest days of the pandemic. Our online catalogue was also viewed by 27,861 individuals from 113 countries. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing helped mitigate shortages of medical devices due to problems in the global supply chain.