ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients is debated due to its uncertain benefits and risks of aerosol dispersion. This retrospective study was aimed to assess the outcome of treatment with HFNC therapy in adult COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) admitted in intensive care units (ICU) and to assess the factors affecting outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrieved electronic medical records of all COVID-19 patients who received HFNC for respiratory support after failure to maintain adequate oxygenation with conventional oxygen devices, between June 1 and August 31, 2020. The data retrieved were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A total number of 558 COVID-19 patients were admitted to ICUs, out of which 139 patients were identified to be on HFNC and 85 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The success rate of 48.2% with HFNC was observed in these patients. The patients recorded to experience HFNC success were of young age and having higher baseline oxygen saturation compared to those who had its failure. The ROX indices post-initiation were observed to be significantly higher in the success group (p ≤0.001). Awake-prone positioning while receiving HFNC was followed by around more patients in the success group (p <0.001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, baseline oxygen saturation, awake-prone positioning, and number of days on HFNC were found to be independently affected outcome with HFNC. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the cases of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia can be managed successfully with HFNC, without the need of mechanical ventilation. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Kerai S, Singh R, Saxena KN, Desai SD, Bhalotra AR. A Retrospective Study on Experience of High-flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen in Critically Ill COVID-19 Adult Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(1):62-66.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: With the rise of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases globally, the infection among frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) escalates many folds. There is, however, limited literature from low middle-income countries regarding risk factors for COVID-19 infection in HCWs. We conducted a case-control study to evaluate the risk factors of COVID-19 infection to HCWs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This case-control study was conducted in a designated COVID-19 hospital. Eighty-one HCWs involved in direct care of COVID-19 patients, identified as cases, and 266 were recruited as controls. Telephonic interviews with participants were conducted, and information regarding demographic variables, chemoprophylaxis, exposure to infected patients, and adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) measures was collected. RESULTS: We observed a statistically significant difference in the number of times training session for IPC measures attended by HCWs (p = 0.02), performance of aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs) (p <0.001), practices of donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) (p <0.001), hand hygiene (p <0.001), and decontamination of highly touched surfaces (p <0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed if the decontamination of highly touched surfaces is decreased by one unit, the odds of getting COVID-19 infection is multiplied by a factor of 0.41 and AGMPs decrease the risk of being a case by 0.76. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted that inadequate observation of IPC methods increases the risk of COVID-19 infection to frontline HCWs, whereas performance of AGMPs does not enhance the risk. In this study, HCWs undertaking an AGMP, because of concern of acquiring infection, were more diligent during procedures and hence had lesser infection. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Kerai S, Singh R, Saxena KN, Desai SD. Assessment of Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease-2019 in Healthcare Workers: A Case-Control Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(1):76-84.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) continues to pose serious challenges to healthcare systems globally with the disease progressing over time in crest-trough pattern of waves. We compared the patient characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients admitted during the first and second waves of COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We did a retrospective analysis of medical records of critically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) at the peak period of both waves. The data on demographics, symptoms, treatment received, and outcomes of patients were recorded. RESULTS: Compared to first wave, significantly more females, younger age group, and those without underlying comorbidities required ICU admission during the second wave. The treatments received during both periods were similar except for preferential use of methylprednisolone over dexamethasone and proclivity of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilation over high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). There was no significant difference in the duration of ICU stay and mortality of patients. During the first wave, the factors associated with nonsurvival of patients were advanced age, comorbidities, severe disease, and a lesser number of days on HFNC. All these factors along with higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score were observed to be linked with patient nonsurvival during the second wave. CONCLUSION: In India, the second wave of COVID-19 significantly influenced ICU demographics with a predominance of females and young adults requiring critical care. During both time periods, patients received similar treatment except for the propensity to use methylprednisolone and BiPAP as opposed to dexamethasone and HFNC in second wave. No significant difference in ICU mortality was noted. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Kerai S, Singh R, Dutta S, Mahajan A, Agarwal M. Comparison of Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Critically Ill Patients Admitted to Tertiary Care Intensive Care Units in India during the Peak Months of First and Second Waves of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Analysis. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(12):1349-1356.
ABSTRACT
Background Previous studies suggest that prone positioning can increase PaO2/FiO2 and reduce mortality in moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Effect of prone positioning and high flow nasal oxygen has been studied individually in COVID-19 patients but their combined effect on patient's outcome is yet to be reported. Methods In this study 120 severe COVID-19 positive patients were included and placed in awake prone positioning with high flow nasal oxygen. The efficacy in improving oxygenation with prone positioning and high flow nasal oxygen were evaluated by blood gas analysis. The primary outcome was a proportion of patients requiring non-invasive ventilation or invasive ventilation. The secondary outcomes were a comparison of arterial blood gas parameters and biochemical inflammatory parameters pre proning, end of first proning and end of last prone position in these patients. Results We found only 35 patients (34.3%) required the need for non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation support whereas 67 patients (65.7%) were managed successfully on high flow nasal oxygen along with awake prone positioning (p = 0.001). We found there were statistically significant improvements in arterial blood gas parameters and biochemical inflammatory markers after the end of last prone positioning with high flow nasal oxygen. Conclusions Early application of prone positioning in combination with high flow nasal oxygen may help in avoiding mechanical ventilation by improving oxygenation and biochemical inflammatory markers.