Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Eur J Intern Med ; 100: 110-118, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800087

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Various forms of Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) have been used during COVID-19, to treat Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure (HARF), but it has been suggested that the occurrence of strenuous inspiratory efforts may cause Self Induced Lung Injury(P-SILI). The aim of this investigation was to record esophageal pressure, when starting NRS application, so as to better understand the potential risk of the patients in terms of P-SILI and ventilator induced lung injury (VILI). METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS: 21 patients with early de-novo respiratory failure due to COVID-19, underwent three 30 min trials applied in random order: high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). After each trial, standard oxygen therapy was reinstituted using a Venturi mask (VM). 15 patients accepted a nasogastric tube placement. Esophageal Pressure (ΔPes) and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPLDyn), together with the breathing pattern using a bioelectrical impedance monitor were recorded. Arterial blood gases were collected in all patients. MAIN RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in breathing pattern and PaCO2 were found. PaO2/FiO2 ratio improved significantly during NIV and CPAP vs VM. NIV was the only NRS to reduce significantly ΔPes vs. VM (-10,2 ±5 cmH20 vs -3,9 ±3,4). No differences were found in ΔPLDyn between NRS (10,2±5; 9,9±3,8; 7,6±4,3; 8,8±3,6 during VM, HFNC, CPAP and NIV respectively). Minute ventilation (Ve) was directly dependent on the patient's inspiratory effort, irrespective of the NRS applied. 14% of patients were intubated, none of them showing a reduction in ΔPes during NRS. CONCLUSIONS: In the early phase of HARF due to COVID-19, the inspiratory effort may not be markedly elevated and the application of NIV and CPAP ameliorates oxygenation vs VM. NIV was superior in reducing ΔPes, maintaining ΔPLDyn within a range of potential safety.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Hypoxia/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
2.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(4): 431-439, 2022 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551111

ABSTRACT

Rationale: The "Berlin definition" of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) does not allow inclusion of patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, several articles have proposed that criteria for defining ARDS should be broadened to allow inclusion of patients receiving HFNO. Objectives: To compare the proportion of patients fulfilling ARDS criteria during HFNO and soon after intubation, and 28-day mortality between patients treated exclusively with HFNO and patients transitioned from HFNO to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: From previously published studies, we analyzed patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who had PaO2/FiO2 of ⩽300 while treated with ⩾40 L/min HFNO, or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with positive end-expiratory pressure of ⩾5 cm H2O (comparator). In patients transitioned from HFNO/NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), we compared ARDS severity during HFNO/NIV and soon after IMV. We compared 28-day mortality in patients treated exclusively with HFNO/NIV versus patients transitioned to IMV. Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 184 and 131 patients receiving HFNO or NIV, respectively. A total of 112 HFNO and 69 NIV patients transitioned to IMV. Of those, 104 (92.9%) patients on HFNO and 66 (95.7%) on NIV continued to have PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 under IMV. Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on HFNO was 4.2% (3/72), whereas in patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV, it was 28.6% (32/112) (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on NIV was 1.6% (1/62), whereas in patients who transitioned from NIV to IMV, it was 44.9% (31/69) (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 19.0% (35/184) and 24.4% (32/131) for HFNO and NIV, respectively (P = 0.2479). Conclusions: Broadening the ARDS definition to include patients on HFNO with PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 may identify patients at earlier stages of disease but with lower mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hypoxia/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/diagnosis , Hypoxia/mortality , Hypoxia/virology , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/mortality , Patient Acuity , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Treatment Outcome
3.
Respir Care ; 67(2): 227-240, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1410802

ABSTRACT

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, noninvasive respiratory support has played a central role in managing patients affected by moderate-to-severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, despite inadequate scientific evidence to support its usage. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment has gained popularity because of its effectiveness in delivering a high fraction of humidified oxygen, which improves ventilatory efficiency and the respiratory pattern, as well as its reported high tolerability, ease of use, and application outside of ICUs. Nevertheless, the risk of infection transmission to health-care workers has raised some concerns about its use in the first wave of the pandemic outbreak, with controversial recommendations provided by different scientific societies. This narrative review provides an overview of the recent evidence on the physiologic rationale, risks, and benefits of using HFNC instead of conventional oxygen therapy and other types of noninvasive respiratory support devices, such as continuous positive airway pressure and noninvasive ventilation in patients affected by COVID-19 pneumonia with associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. It also summarizes the available evidence with regard to the clinical use of HFNC during the current pandemic and its reported outcomes, and highlights the risks of bioaerosol dispersion associated with HFNC use.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Cannula , Humans , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Eur J Intern Med ; 92: 48-54, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1272399

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Up to fifteen percent of patients with novel pandemic coronavirus disease (Covid-19) have acute respiratory failure (ARF). Ratio between arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), P/F, is currently used as a marker of ARF severity in Covid-19. P/F does not reflect the respiratory efforts made by patients to maintain arterial blood oxygenation, such as tachypnea and hyperpnea, leading to hypocapnia. Standard PaO2, the value of PaO2 adjusted for arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) of the subject, better reflects the pathophysiology of hypoxemic ARF. We hypothesized that the ratio between standard PaO2 over FiO2 (STP/F) better predicts Covid-19 ARF severity compared to P/F. METHODS: Aim of this pilot prospectic observational study was to observe differences between STP/F and P/F in predicting outcome failure, defined as need of invasive mechanical ventilation and/or deaths in Covid-19 ARF. Accuracy was calculated using Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis and areas under the ROC curve (AUROC) were compared. RESULTS: 349 consecutive subjects admitted to our respiratory wards due to Covid-19 ARF were enrolled. STP/F was accurate to predict mortality and superior to P/F with, respectively, AUROC 0.710 versus 0.688, p = 0.012.Both STP/F and PF were accurate to predict outcome failure (AUROC respectively of 0.747 and 0.742, p = 0.590). DISCUSSION: This is the first study assessing the role of STP/F in describing severity of ARF in Covid-19. According to results, STP/F is accurate and superior to P/F in predicting in-hospital mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Insufficiency , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Oxygen , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Pulmonology ; 28(1): 13-17, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1246146

ABSTRACT

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is used to treat acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) even outside the ICU and the ROX index (pulse oximetry/fraction of inspired oxygen/respiratory rate) may predict HFNC failure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was therefore to verify whether the ROX index is an accurate predictor of HFNC failure for COVID-19 patients treated outside the intensive care unit (ICU) and to evaluate the validity of the previously suggested threshold. DESIGN: Multicenter study. Retrospective observational analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: 3 centres specialized in non-invasive respiratory support (Buenos Aires, Argentina; Bolzano and Treviso, Italy). Patients treated outside the ICU were analysed MEASUREMENTS: The variables to calculate the ROX index were collected during the first day of therapy at 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours and then recorded every 24 hours. HFNC failure was defined as escalation of respiratory support to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 35 (29%) patients failed HFNC and required intubation. ROC analysis identified the 12-hour ROX index as the best predictor of intubation with an AUC of 0.7916[CI 95% 0.6905-0.8927] and the best threshold to be 5.99[Specificity 96% Sensitivity 62%]. In the survival analysis, a ROX value <5.99 was associated with an increased risk of failure (p = 0008 log - rank test). The threshold of 4,9 identified by Roca as the best predictor in non-COVID patients, was not able to discriminate between success and failure (p = 0.4 log-rank test) in our patients. CONCLUSIONS: ROX index may be useful in guiding the clinicians in their decision to intubate patients, especially in patients with moderate ARF, treated therefore outside the ICU. Indeed, it also demonstrates a different threshold value than reported for non-COVID patients, possibly related to the different mechanisms of hypoxia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oximetry , Respiratory Rate/physiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Pulmonology ; 28(3): 181-192, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1144904

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-month period (March 2010-June 2020) comparing severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to Respiratory Intensive Care Unit for non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) and subjected to awake prone position (PP) with those receiving standard care (SC). Primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate. In-hospital mortality, time to ETI, tracheostomy, length of RICU and hospital stay served as secondary outcomes. Risk factors associated to ETI among PP patients were also investigated. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included, 76 in the SC and 38 in the PP group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed greater effect of PP compared to SC on ETI rate (HR = 0.45 95% CI [0.2-0.9], p = 0.02) even after adjustment for baseline confounders (HR = 0.59 95% CI [0.3-0.94], p = 0.03). After stratification according to non-invasive respiratory support, PP showed greater significant benefit for those on High Flow Nasal Cannulae (HR = 0.34 95% CI [0.12-0.84], p = 0.04). Compared to SC, PP patients also showed a favorable difference in terms of days free from respiratory support, length of RICU and hospital stay while mortality and tracheostomy rate were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning in awake and spontaneously breathing Covid-19 patients is feasible and associated with a reduction of intubation rate, especially in those patients undergoing HFNC. Although our results are intriguing, further randomized controlled trials are needed to answer all the open questions remaining pending about the real efficacy of PP in this setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Humans , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Wakefulness
7.
Eur Respir J ; 56(5)2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067167

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 outbreak spread rapidly in Italy and the lack of intensive care unit (ICU) beds soon became evident, forcing the application of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) outside the ICU, raising concerns over staff contamination. We aimed to analyse the safety of the hospital staff and the feasibility and outcomes of NRS applied to patients outside the ICU. METHODS: In this observational study, data from 670 consecutive patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 referred to pulmonology units in nine hospitals between March 1 and May 10, 2020 were analysed. Data collected included medication, mode and usage of NRS (i.e. high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive ventilation (NIV)), length of stay in hospital, endotracheal intubation (ETI) and deaths. RESULTS: 42 (11.1%) healthcare workers tested positive for infection, but only three of them required hospitalisation. Data are reported for all patients (69.3% male), whose mean±sd age was 68±13 years. The arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio at baseline was 152±79, and the majority (49.3%) of patients were treated with CPAP. The overall unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was 26.9%, with 16%, 30% and 30% for HFNC, CPAP and NIV, respectively, while the total ETI rate was 27%, with 29%, 25% and 28%, respectively; the relative probability of death was not related to the NRS used after adjustment for confounders. ETI and length of stay were not different among the groups. Mortality rate increased with age and comorbidity class progression. CONCLUSIONS: The application of NRS outside the ICU is feasible and associated with favourable outcomes. Nonetheless, it was associated with a risk of staff contamination.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care , Noninvasive Ventilation , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Feasibility Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Int. J. Ther. Rehabil. ; 5(27)20200502.
Article in English | WHO COVID, ELSEVIER | ID: covidwho-601914
11.
Eur Respir Rev ; 29(155)2020 Mar 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-37723

ABSTRACT

The World Health Organization has recently defined the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection a pandemic. The infection, that may cause a potentially very severe respiratory disease, now called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has airborne transmission via droplets. The rate of transmission is quite high, higher than common influenza. Healthcare workers are at high risk of contracting the infection particularly when applying respiratory devices such as oxygen cannulas or noninvasive ventilation. The aim of this article is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the correct use of "respiratory devices" in the COVID-19 emergency and protect healthcare workers from contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Humans , Hyperbaric Oxygenation , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL