High-flow nasal cannula for severe COVID-19 patients in a Japanese single-center, retrospective, observational study: 1 year of clinical experience.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be effective in treating type 1 respiratory failure by reducing the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this study was to assess the reduction of disease severity and safety of HFNC treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. We retrospectively observed 513 consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to January 2021. We included patients with severe COVID-19 who received HFNC for their deteriorating respiratory status. HFNC success was defined as improvement in respiratory status after HFNC and transfer to conventional oxygen therapy, while HFNC failure was defined as transfer to non-invasive positive pressure ventilation or ventilator, or death after HFNC. Predictive factors associated with failure to prevent severe disease were identified. Thirty-eight patients received HFNC. Twenty-five (65.8%) patients were classified in the HFNC success group. In the univariate analysis, age, history of chronic kidney disease (CKD), non-respiratory sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) ≥ 1, oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (SpO2/FiO2) before HFNC ≤ 169.2, were significant predictors of HFNC failure. Multivariate analysis revealed that SpO2/FiO2 value before HFNC ≤ 169.2 was an independent predictor of HFNC failure. No apparent nosocomial infection occurred during the study period. Appropriate use of HFNC for acute respiratory failure caused by COVID-19 can reduce the severity of severe disease without causing nosocomial infection. Age, history of CKD, non-respiratory SOFA before HFNC ≤ 1, and SpO2/FiO2 before HFNC ≤ 169.2 were associated with HFNC failure.

Suspected Tuberculous Pleurisy and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Comorbidity.

A 33-year-old woman with a fever, cough, and pharyngitis was admitted after left-sided pleural effusion was detected. The fever and upper respiratory symptoms were confirmed, and she was diagnosed with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) after showing a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. After thoracentesis, pleural fluid revealed elevated adenosine deaminase values and a positive QuantiFeron test; tuberculous pleurisy was thus suspected. Subsequent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR and anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG tests were negative, suggesting that the initial PCR result had been erroneous. However, we were unable to confirm this. Data concerning COVID-19 diagnostics are insufficient at present. It is important to make comprehensive judgments regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients as well as public health.

Diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal swab, nasal swab and saliva swab samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR.

BACKGROUND: The current gold standard in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) diagnostics is the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. Alternatively, nasal swab (NS) or saliva swab (SS) specimens are used, although available data on test accuracy are limited. We examined the diagnostic accuracy of NPS/NS/SS samples for this purpose. METHODS: Ten patients were included after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in NPS samples according to the National Institute of Infectious Disease guidelines. In comparison with this conventional diagnostic method, NPS/NS/SS samples were tested using the cobas 6800 systems RT-PCR device. To investigate the usefulness of the cobas method and the difference among sample types, the agreement and sensitivity were calculated. Five to six samples were collected over a total period of 5-6 d from each patient. RESULTS: Fifty-seven sets of NPS/NS/SS samples were collected, of which 40 tested positive for COVID-19 by the conventional method. Overall, the concordance rates using the conventional method were 86.0%/70.2%/54.4% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas); however, for samples collected up to and including on Day 9 after disease onset (22 negative and one positive specimens), the corresponding rates were 95.7%/87.0%/65.2%. The overall sensitivity estimates were 100.0%/67.5%/37.5% for NPS/NS/SS samples (cobas). For samples up to 9 d after onset, the corresponding values were 100.0%/86.4%/63.6%. CONCLUSIONS: NS samples are more reliable than SS samples and can be an alternative to NPS samples. They can be a useful diagnostic method in the future.