Corrigendum: Helmet ventilation for pediatric patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.839476.].

Severe SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia and Pneumomediastinum/Pneumothorax: A Prospective Observational Study in an Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: The occurrence of pneumomediastinum (PM) and/or pneumothorax (PTX) in patients with severe pneumonia due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was evaluated. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study conducted in patients admitted to the intermediate respiratory care unit (IRCU) of a COVID-19 monographic hospital in Madrid (Spain) between December 14, 2020 and September 28, 2021. All patients had a diagnosis of severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and required noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS): high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). The incidences of PM and/or PTX, overall and by NIRS, and their impact on the probabilities of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and death were studied. RESULTS: A total of 1306 patients were included. 4.3% (56/1306) developed PM/PTX, 3.8% (50/1306) PM, 1.6% (21/1306) PTX, and 1.1% (15/1306) PM + PTX. 16.1% (9/56) of patients with PM/PTX had HFNC alone, while 83.9% (47/56) had HFNC + CPAP/BiPAP. In comparison, 41.7% (521/1250) of patients without PM and PTX had HFNC alone (odds ratio [OR] 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.13-0.55; p < .001), while 58.3% (729/1250) had HFNC + CPAP/BiPAP (OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.81-7.68; p < .001). The probability of needing IMV among patients with PM/PTX was 67.9% (36/53) (OR 7.46; 95% CI 4.12-13.50; p < .001), while it was 22.1% (262/1185) among patients without PM and PTX. Mortality among patients with PM/PTX was 33.9% (19/56) (OR 4.39; 95% CI 2.45-7.85; p < .001), while it was 10.5% (131/1250) among patients without PM and PTX. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted to the IRCU for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia requiring NIRS, incidences of PM/PTX, PM, PTX, and PM + PTX were observed to be 4.3%, 3.8%, 1.6%, and 1.1%, respectively. Most patients with PM/PTX had HFNC + CPAP/BiPAP as the NIRS device, much more frequently than patients without PM and PTX. The probabilities of IMV and death among patients with PM/PTX were 64.3% and 33.9%, respectively, higher than those observed in patients without PM and PTX, which were 21.0% and 10.5%, respectively.

COVID-19 Critical Illness: A Data-Driven Review.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges in critical care medicine, including extreme demand for intensive care unit (ICU) resources and rapidly evolving understanding of a novel disease. Up to one-third of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 experience critical illness. The most common form of organ failure in COVID-19 critical illness is acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, which clinically presents as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in three-quarters of ICU patients. Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are being used with increasing frequency given their potential to reduce the need for intubation. Determining optimal patient selection for and timing of intubation remains a challenge. Management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 largely mirrors that of non-COVID-19 ARDS. Organ failure is common and portends a poor prognosis. Mortality rates have improved over the course of the pandemic, likely owing to increasing disease familiarity, data-driven pharmacologics, and improved adherence to evidence-based critical care.

Role of helmet ventilation during the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization; it has affected millions of people and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia may develop acute hypoxia respiratory failure and require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive respiratory management. Healthcare workers have a high risk of contracting COVID-19 while fitting respiratory devices. Recently, European experts have suggested that the use of helmet continuous positive airway pressure should be the first choice for acute hypoxia respiratory failure caused by COVID-19 because it reduces the spread of the virus in the ambient air. By contrast, in the United States, helmets were restricted for respiratory care before the COVID-19 pandemic until the Food and Drug Administration provided the 'Umbrella Emergency Use Authorization for Ventilators and Ventilator Accessories'. This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview of the use of helmet ventilation for patients with respiratory failure.

Different Methods to Improve the Monitoring of Noninvasive Respiratory Support of Patients with Severe Pneumonia/ARDS Due to COVID-19: An Update.

The latest guidelines for the hospital care of patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory failure have moved towards the widely accepted use of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) as opposed to early intubation at the pandemic onset. The establishment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia goes through different pathophysiological phases that partially resemble typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and have been categorized into different clinical-radiological phenotypes. These can variably benefit on the application of external positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during noninvasive mechanical ventilation, mainly due to variable levels of lung recruitment ability and lung compliance during different phases of the disease. A growing body of evidence suggests that intense respiratory effort producing excessive negative pleural pressure swings (Ppl) plays a critical role in the onset and progression of lung and diaphragm damage in patients treated with noninvasive respiratory support. Routine respiratory monitoring is mandatory to avoid the nasty continuation of NIRS in patients who are at higher risk for respiratory deterioration and could benefit from early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation instead. Here we propose different monitoring methods both in the clinical and experimental settings adapted for this purpose, although further research is required to allow their extensive application in clinical practice. We reviewed the needs and available tools for clinical-physiological monitoring that aims at optimizing the ventilatory management of patients affected by acute respiratory distress syndrome due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Optimising respiratory support for early COVID-19 pneumonia: a computational modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal respiratory support in early COVID-19 pneumonia is controversial and remains unclear. Using computational modelling, we examined whether lung injury might be exacerbated in early COVID-19 by assessing the impact of conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: Using an established multi-compartmental cardiopulmonary simulator, we first modelled COT at a fixed FiO2 (0.6) with elevated respiratory effort for 30 min in 120 spontaneously breathing patients, before initiating HFNOT, CPAP, or NIV. Respiratory effort was then reduced progressively over 30-min intervals. Oxygenation, respiratory effort, and lung stress/strain were quantified. Lung-protective mechanical ventilation was also simulated in the same cohort. RESULTS: HFNOT, CPAP, and NIV improved oxygenation compared with conventional therapy, but also initially increased total lung stress and strain. Improved oxygenation with CPAP reduced respiratory effort but lung stress/strain remained elevated for CPAP >5 cm H2O. With reduced respiratory effort, HFNOT maintained better oxygenation and reduced total lung stress, with no increase in total lung strain. Compared with 10 cm H2O PEEP, 4 cm H2O PEEP in NIV reduced total lung stress, but high total lung strain persisted even with less respiratory effort. Lung-protective mechanical ventilation improved oxygenation while minimising lung injury. CONCLUSIONS: The failure of noninvasive ventilatory support to reduce respiratory effort may exacerbate pulmonary injury in patients with early COVID-19 pneumonia. HFNOT reduces lung strain and achieves similar oxygenation to CPAP/NIV. Invasive mechanical ventilation may be less injurious than noninvasive support in patients with high respiratory effort.

Chest X-ray Does Not Predict the Risk of Endotracheal Intubation and Escalation of Treatment in COVID-19 Patients Requiring Noninvasive Respiratory Support.

Forms of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) have been widely used to avoid endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, inappropriate prolongation of NIRS may delay endotracheal intubation and worsen patient outcomes. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess whether the CARE score, a chest X-ray score previously validated in COVID-19 patients, may predict the need for endotracheal intubation and escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients requiring NIRS. From December 2020 to May 2021, we included 142 patients receiving NIRS who had a first chest X-ray available at NIRS initiation and a second one after 48-72 h. In 94 (66%) patients, the level of respiratory support was increased, while endotracheal intubation was required in 83 (58%) patients. The CARE score at NIRS initiation was not predictive of the need for endotracheal intubation (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.06) or escalation of treatment (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96-1.07). In conclusion, chest X-ray severity, as assessed by the CARE score, did not allow predicting endotracheal intubation or escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients undergoing NIRS.

Prone positioning for non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning in non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients is becoming widely applied in practice alongside noninvasive respiratory support. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effect, timing, and populations that might benefit from awake proning regarding oxygenation, mortality, and tracheal intubation compared with supine position in hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and BMJ Best Practice until August 2021 (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD42021250322). Studies included comprise least-wise 20 adult patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome or coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Fourteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria and 2352 patients were included; of those patients, 99% (n=2332/2352) had COVID-19. Amongst 1041 (44%) patients who were placed in the prone position, 1021 were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mean difference -23.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -34.80 to 11.39; P=0.0001; I2=26%) after prone positioning. In patients with COVID-19, lower mortality was found in the group placed in the prone position (150/771 prone vs 391/1457 supine; odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32-0.80; P=0.003; I2=48%), but the tracheal intubation rate was unchanged (284/824 prone vs 616/1271 supine; OR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.43-1.22; P=0.220; I2=75%). Overall proning was tolerated for a median of 4 h (inter-quartile range: 2-16). CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning can improve oxygenation amongst non-intubated patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure when applied for at least 4 h over repeated daily episodes. Awake proning appears safe, but the effect on tracheal intubation rate and survival remains uncertain.

Noninvasive Respiratory Support.

Despite its life-saving nature, invasive mechanical ventilation does not come without risk, and the avoidance of invasive mechanical ventilation is the primary goal of noninvasive respiratory support. Noninvasive respiratory support in the form of continuous or bi-level positive airway pressure were considered the only viable options to accomplish this for many years. Innovation and research have led to high-flow nasal cannula being added to the list of specialized therapies clinically shown to reduce escalation of care and intubation rates in patients presenting with acute respiratory failure. The amount of research being performed in this clinical space is impressive, to say the least, and it is rapidly evolving. It is the responsibility of the clinicians trained to use these therapies in the management of respiratory failure to understand the currently available evidence, benefits, and risks associated with the type of noninvasive respiratory support being used to treat our patients.