Lack of Benefit of High Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy as Ceiling of Treatment for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonitis in Elderly Frail Patients: A Single Centre Observational Study.

Background: Severe COVID-19 pneumonitis in elderly frail patients is associated with poor outcomes, and therefore invasive mechanical ventilation is often deemed an inappropriate course of action. Some evidence suggests high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) may prevent the need for invasive ventilation in other groups of patients, but whether it is an appropriate ceiling of care for older frail patients is unknown. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis requiring FiO2>60% who were deemed inappropriate for invasive ventilation or non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP). Our local protocol based on national guidance suggested these patients should be considered for HFNO. We observed whether the patients received HFNO or standard oxygen therapy (SOT) and compared mortality and survival time in these groups. Results: We identified 81 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. From this group, 24 received HFNO and 57 received SOT. The HFNO group was similar in age, BMI and co-morbidities to the SOT group but less frail, as determined by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). All 24 patients that received HFNO died in comparison to 46 patients (80.7%) in the SOT group. Mortality in the HFNO group was significantly higher than in the SOT group. Conclusion: Elderly frail patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonitis deemed inappropriate for invasive ventilation and did not benefit from HFNO. Further, HFNO may have been associated with harm in this group.

Outcomes from a virtual ward delivering oxygen at home for patients recovering from COVID-19: a real world observational study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on the safety of providing oxygen at home to stable patients recovering from COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients discharged to a COVID-19 virtual ward (CVW) between January 2021 and March 2021 at a UK district general hospital was performed. Patients with improving clinical trajectories and oxygen requirements up to 4 L/minute were eligible. Outcomes measured were 30-day mortality and readmission rate. RESULTS: From 02 January 2021 to 16 March 2021 (74 days), 147 patients discharged to the CVW were included: 71 received continuous or ambulatory oxygen, and 76 received pulse oximetry monitoring only. Five patients were readmitted within 30 days and two patients died. There were no significant differences between readmission and mortality rates between those discharged with or without oxygen. CONCLUSION: Provision of oxygen at home for selected patients recovering from COVID-19 is safe with low risk of readmission and death.

Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care test for rapid triage and identification of possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is straining healthcare resources. Molecular testing turnaround time precludes having results at the point-of-care (POC) thereby exposing COVID-19/Non-COVID-19 patients while awaiting diagnosis. We evaluated the utility of a triage strategy including FebriDx, a 10-minute POC finger-stick blood test that differentiates viral from bacterial acute respiratory infection through detection of Myxovirus-resistance protein A (MxA) and C-reactive protein (CRP), to rapidly isolate viral cases requiring confirmatory testing. METHODS: This observational, prospective, single-center study enrolled patients presenting to/within an acute care hospital in England with suspected COVID-19 between March and April 2020. Immunocompetent patients ≥16 years requiring hospitalisation with pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome or influenza-like illness (fever and ≥1 respiratory symptom within 7 days of enrolment, or inpatients with new respiratory symptoms, fever of unknown cause or pre-existing respiratory condition worsening). The primary endpoint was diagnostic performance of FebriDx to identify COVID-19 as a viral infection; secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 molecular test diagnostic performance compared with the reference standard COVID-19 Case Definition (molecular or antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2). RESULTS: Valid results were available for 47 patients. By reference standard, 35 had viral infections (34/35 COVID-19; 1/35 non-COVID-19; overall FebriDx viral sensitivity 97.1% (95%CI 83.3-99.9)). Of the COVID-19 cases, 34/34 were FebriDx viral positive (sensitivity 100%; 95%CI 87.4-100); 29/34 had an initial SARS-CoV-2 positive molecular test (sensitivity 85.3%; 95%CI 68.2-94.5). FebriDx was viral negative when the diagnosis was not COVID-19 and SARS-Cov-2 molecular test was negative (negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (13/13; 95%CI 71.7-100)) exceeding initial SARS-CoV-2 molecular test NPV 72.2% (13/19; 95%CI 46.4-89.3). The diagnostic specificity of FebriDx and initial SARS-CoV-2 molecular test was 100% (13/13; 95%CI 70-100 and 13/13; 95%CI 85.4-100, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: FebriDx could be deployed as part of a reliable triage strategy for identifying symptomatic cases as possible COVID-19 in the pandemic.