The older patients in subacute units

Although no age group is safe from the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the burden is higher and severe for persons aged 70 years and over, with documented mortality rates of more than 20% among octogenarians. It is clear that the COVID-19-susceptible population involves older people and people with certain underlying medical conditions (such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, respiratory diseases), which requires more attention and care. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020.

Prediction of Noninvasive Ventilation Failure in COVID-19 Patients: When Shall We Stop?

INTRODUCTION: In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there are no tools available for the difficult task of recognizing which patients do not benefit from maintaining respiratory support, such as noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Identifying treatment failure is crucial to provide the best possible care and optimizing resources. Therefore, this study aimed to build a model that predicts NIV failure in patients who did not progress to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). METHODS: This retrospective observational study included critical COVID-19 patients treated with NIV who did not progress to IMV. Patients were admitted to a Portuguese tertiary hospital between October 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. The outcome of interest was NIV failure, defined as COVID-19-related in-hospital death. A binary logistic regression was performed, where the outcome (mortality) was the dependent variable. Using the independent variables of the logistic regression a decision-tree classification model was implemented. RESULTS: The study sample, composed of 103 patients, had a mean age of 66.3 years (SD=14.9), of which 38.8% (40 patients) were female. Most patients (82.5%) were autonomous for basic activities of daily living. The prediction model was statistically significant with an area under the curve of 0.994 and a precision of 0.950. Higher age, a higher number of days with increases in the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), a higher number of days of maximum expiratory positive airway pressure, a lower number of days on NIV, and a lower number of days from disease onset to hospital admission were, with statistical significance, associated with increased odds of death. A decision-tree classification model was then obtained to achieve the best combination of variables to predict the outcome of interest. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a model to predict death in COVID-19 patients treated with NIV in patients who did not progress to IMV, based on easily applicable variables that mainly reflect patients' evolution during hospitalization. Along with the decision-tree classification model, these original findings may help clinicians define the best therapeutical approach to each patient, prioritizing life-comforting measures when adequate, and optimizing resources, which is crucial within limited or overloaded healthcare systems. Further research is needed on this subject of treatment failure, not only to understand if these results are reproducible but also, in a broader sense, helping to fill this gap in modern medicine guidelines.

Aerosol Management during Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation Therapy

Noninvasive ventilation [NIV] is used extensively in acute and chronic settings, at home, and in hospitals. It plays a pivotal role in managing respiratory failure during the COVID-19 pandemic with robust use in hospitals to avert the need for intubation as well as reintubation. However, its use is associated with aerosol generation, which poses an immediate threat to all who work around it, like healthcare workers. Besides, domiciliary use is also associated with the same risk to the household and caregivers. Therefore, we need to plan the therapy and forge guidelines and recommendations to keep NIV safe during infections. Here we have reviewed the available literature and applied our experience to formulate guidelines and recommendations. However, updates and appraisals are evolving rapidly, and we need to keep our eyes open to tailor our approach. © 2022 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are important treatment approaches for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the differential impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effects of HFNC versus NIV (interface or mode) on clinical outcomes of COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) of HFNC and NIV in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF published in English before February 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the mortality rate, and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation [ventilator-free day (VFD)]. RESULTS: In all, 23 studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 5354 patients were included. The mortality rate was higher in the NIV group than the HFNC group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.84, p = 0.0008, I2 = 60%]; however, in this subgroup, no significant difference in mortality was observed in the NIV-helmet group (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.63-2.32, p = 0.57, I2 = 0%) or NIV-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) group (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.51-1.17, p = 0.23, I2 = 65%) relative to the HFNC group. There were no differences in intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or days free from invasive mechanical ventilation (VFD) between the HFNC and NIV groups. CONCLUSION: Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of helmet or CPAP group. Future large sample RCTs are necessary to prove our findings. REGISTRATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022321997).

Role of advanced respiratory support in acute respiratory failure in clinically frail patients with COVID-19.

Background: The main aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of advanced respiratory support (ARS) for acute respiratory failure in do-not-attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order (DNACPR) COVID-19 patients. Methods: In this single-center study, the impact of different types of ARS modality, PaO2/FiO2 (PF) ratio, clinical frailty score (CFS) and 4C score on mortality was evaluated. Results: There was no significant difference in age, type of ARS modality, PF ratio and 4C scores between those who died and those who survived. Overall survival rates/hospital discharge of patients still requiring ARS at 5 and 7 days post admission were 20 and 17%, respectively. Conclusion: Our study showed that ARS can be a useful tool in frail, elderly and high-risk COVID-19 patients irrespective of high 4C mortality score.

Helmet NIV in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure due to COVID-19: Change in PaO2/FiO2 Ratio a Predictor of Success.

In acute respiratory failure due to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, mechanical ventilation remains challenging and may result in high mortality. The use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may delay required invasive ventilation, increase adverse outcomes, and have a potential aerosol risk to caregivers. Data of 30 patients were collected from patient files and analyzed. Twenty-one (70%) patients were weaned successfully after helmet-NIV support (NIV success group), and invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 9 (30%) patients (NIV failure group) of which 8 (26.7%) patients died. In NIV success vs failure patients, the mean baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio (PFR) (147.2 ± 57.9 vs 156.8 ± 59.0 mm Hg; p = 0.683) and PFR before initiation of helmet (132.3 ± 46.9 vs 121.6 ± 32.7 mm Hg; p = 0.541) were comparable. The NIV success group demonstrated a progressive improvement in PFR in comparison with the failure group at 2 hours (158.8 ± 56.1 vs 118.7 ± 40.7 mm Hg; p = 0.063) and 24 hours (PFR-24) (204.4 ± 94.3 vs 121.3 ± 32.6; p = 0.016). As predictor variables, PFR-24 and change (delta) in PFR at 24 hours from baseline or helmet initiation (dPFR-24) were significantly associated with NIV success in univariate analysis but similar significance could not be reflected in multivariate analysis perhaps due to a small sample size of the study. The PFR-24 cutoff of 161 mm Hg and dPFR-24 cutoff of -1.44 mm Hg discriminate NIV success and failure groups with the area under curve (confidence interval) of 0.78 (0.62-0.95); p = 0.015 and 0.74 (0.55-0.93); p = 0.039, respectively. Helmet interface NIV may be a safe and effective tool for the management of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia with acute respiratory failure. More studies are needed to further evaluate the role of helmet NIV especially in patients with initial PFR <150 mm Hg to define PFR/dPFR cutoff at the earliest time point for prediction of helmet-NIV success. How to cite this article Jha OK, Kumar S, Mehra S, Sircar M, Gupta R. Helmet NIV in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure due to COVID-19: Change in PaO2/FiO2 Ratio a Predictor of Success. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(10):1137-1146.

Implications of early respiratory support strategies on disease progression in critical COVID-19: a matched subanalysis of the prospective RISC-19-ICU cohort.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is widespread. While the risks and benefits of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefits of different respiratory support strategies, employed in intensive care units during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. METHODS: Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclassified into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV), and early IMV, according to the respiratory support strategy employed at the day of admission to ICU. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure comparability between groups. RESULTS: Initially, 1421 patients were assessed for possible study inclusion. Of these, 351 patients (85 SOT, 87 HFNC, 87 NIV, and 92 IMV) remained eligible for full analysis after propensity score matching. 55% of patients initially receiving noninvasive respiratory support required IMV. The intubation rate was lower in patients initially ventilated with HFNC and NIV compared to those who received SOT (SOT: 64%, HFNC: 52%, NIV: 49%, p = 0.025). Compared to the other respiratory support strategies, NIV was associated with a higher overall ICU mortality (SOT: 18%, HFNC: 20%, NIV: 37%, IMV: 25%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, a trial of HFNC appeared to be the most balanced initial respiratory support strategy, given the reduced intubation rate and comparable ICU mortality rate. Nonetheless, considering the uncertainty and stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, SOT and early IMV represented safe initial respiratory support strategies. The presented findings, in agreement with classic ARDS literature, suggest that NIV should be avoided whenever possible due to the elevated ICU mortality risk.

Noninvasive Oxygen Strategies to Manage Confirmed COVID-19 Patients in Indian Intensive Care Units: A Survey.

BACKGROUND: About 5% of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients will need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring oxygen support. The choice between early mechanical ventilation and noninvasive oxygen therapies, such as, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and/or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has to balance the contradictory priorities of protecting healthcare workers by minimizing aerosol-generation and optimizing resource management. This survey over two timeframes aimed to explore the controversial issue of location and noninvasive oxygen therapy in non-intubated ICU patients using a clinical vignette. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was designed, piloted, and distributed electronically to Indian intensivists/anesthetists, from private hospitals, government hospitals, and medical college hospitals (the latter two referred to as first-responder hospitals), who are directly responsible for admitting/managing patients in ICU. RESULTS: Of the 204 responses (125/481 in phase 1 and 79/320 in phase 2), 183 responses were included. Respondents from first-responder hospitals were more willing to manage non-intubated hypoxemic patients in neutral pressure rooms, while respondents from private hospitals preferred negative-pressure rooms (p < 0.001). In both the phases, private hospital doctors were less comfortable to use any form of noninvasive oxygen therapies in neutral-pressure rooms compared to first-responder hospitals (low-flow oxygen therapy: 72 vs 50%, p < 0.01; HFNO: 47 vs 24%, p < 0.01 and NPPV: 38 vs 28%, p = 0.20). INTERPRETATION: Variations existed in practices among first-responder and private intensivists/anesthetists. The resource optimal private hospital intensivists/anesthetists were less comfortable using noninvasive oxygen therapies in managing COVID-19 patients. This may reflect differential resource availability necessitating resolution at national, state, and local levels. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Subramaniam A, Haji JY, Kumar P, Ramanathan K, Rajamani A. Noninvasive Oxygen Strategies to Manage Confirmed COVID-19 Patients in Indian Intensive Care Units: A Survey. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(10):926-931.

Role of Noninvasive Oxygen Therapy Strategies in COVID-19 Patients: Where are We Going?

How to cite this article: Dixit SB. Role of Noninvasive Oxygen Therapy Strategies in COVID-19 Patients: Where are We Going? Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(10):897-898.

Prone Positioning in Non-Intubated Patients With COVID-19 Outside of the Intensive Care Unit: More Evidence Needed.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought the Italian National Health System to its knees. The abnormally high influx of patients, together with the limited resources available, has forced clinicians to make unprecedented decisions and provide compassionate treatments for which little or no evidence is yet available. This is the case for the use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and continuous airway pressure ventilation, combined with prone position in patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome treated outside of intensive care units. In our article, we comment on the evidence available, so far, and provide a brief summary of data collected at our health institution in Piedmont, Italy.