Choice of respiratory therapy for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective case series study.

Background: In the treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), physicians choose respiratory management ranging from low-flow oxygen therapy to more invasive methods, depending on the severity of the patient's symptoms. Recently, the ratio of oxygen saturation (ROX) index has been proposed as a clinical indicator to support the decision for either high-flow nasal cannulation (HFNC) or mechanical ventilation (MV). However, the reported cut-off value of the ROX index ranges widely from 2.7 to 5.9. The objective of this study was to identify indices to achieve empirical physician decisions for MV initiation, providing insights to shorten the delay from HFNC to MV. We retrospectively analyzed the ROX index 6 hours after initiating HFNC and lung infiltration volume (LIV) calculated from chest computed tomography (CT) images in COVID-19 patients with AHRF. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data for 59 COVID-19 patients with AHRF in our facility to determine the cut-off value of the ROX index for respiratory therapeutic decisions and the significance of radiological evaluation of pneumonia severity. The physicians chose either HFNC or MV, and the outcomes were retrospectively analyzed using the ROX index for initiating HFNC. LIV was calculated using chest CT images at admission. Results: Among the 59 patients who required high-flow oxygen therapy with HFNC at admission, 24 were later transitioned to MV; the remaining 35 patients recovered. Four of the 24 patients in the MV group died, and the ROX index values of these patients were 9.8, 7.3, 5.4, and 3.0, respectively. These index values indicated that the ROX index of half of the patients who died was higher than the reported cut-off values of the ROX index, which range from 2.7-5.99. The cut-off value of the ROX index 6 hours after the start of HFNC, which was used to classify the management of HFNC or MV as a physician's clinical decision, was approximately 6.1. The LIV cut-off value on chest CT between HFNC and MV was 35.5%. Using both the ROX index and LIV, the cut-off classifying HFNC or MV was obtained using the equation, LIV = 4.26 × (ROX index) + 7.89. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, as an evaluation metric of the classification, improved to 0.94 with a sensitivity of 0.79 and specificity of 0.91 using both the ROX index and LIV. Conclusion: Physicians' empirical decisions associated with the choice of respiratory therapy for HFNC oxygen therapy or MV can be supported by the combination of the ROX index and the LIV index calculated from chest CT images.

Predicting the successful application of high-flow nasal oxygen cannula in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The right time of high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNCs) application in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure remains uncertain. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, COVID-19-infected adult patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure were enrolled. Their baseline epidemiological data and respiratory failure related parameters, including the Ventilation in COVID-19 Estimation (VICE), and the ratio of oxygen saturation (ROX index), were recorded. The primary outcome measured was the 28-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients were enrolled. Fifty-four (78%) patients who intubated and received invasive mechanical ventilatory (MV) support on day 1 were enrolled in the MV group. The remaining fifteen (22%) patients received HFNC initially (HFNC group), in which, ten (66%) patients were not intubated during hospitalization were belong to HFNC-success group and five (33%) of these patients were intubated later due to disease progression were attributed to HFNC-failure group. Compared with those in the MV group, those in the HFNC group had a lower mortality rate (6.7% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.0138). There were no differences in baseline characteristics among the two groups; however, the HFNC group had a lower VICE score (0.105 [0.049-0.269] vs. 0.260 [0.126-0.693], p = 0.0092) and higher ROX index (5.3 [5.1-10.7] vs. 4.3 [3.9-4.9], p = 0.0007) than the MV group. The ROX index was higher in the HFNC success group immediately before (p = 0.0136) and up to 12 hours of HFNC therapy than in the HFNC failure group. CONCLUSIONS: Early intubation may be considered in patients with a higher VICE score or a lower ROX index. The ROX score during HFNCs use can provide an early warning sign of treatment failure. Further investigations are warranted to confirm these results.

High flow nasal cannulas (HFNCs) were widely used in patients with COVID-19 infection related hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, there were concerns about its failure and related delayed intubation may be associated with a higher mortality rate. This retrospective study revealed patients with higher baseline disease severity and higher VICE scores may be treated with primary invasive mechanical ventilation. On the contrary, if their baseline VICE score is low and ROX index is high, HFNCs treatment might be safely applied initially. The trends of serial ROX index values during HFNC use could be a reliable periscope to predict the HFNC therapy outcome, therefore avoided delayed intubation.

Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 may not be dispersed by a high-flow nasal cannula.

A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy plays a significant role in providing respiratory support to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the dispersion of the virus owing to aerosol generation is a matter of concern. This study aimed to evaluate if HFNC disperses the virus into the air. Among patients with COVID-19 admitted to private rooms with controlled negative pressure, we enrolled those admitted within 10 days of onset and requiring oxygenation through a conventional nasal cannula or HFNC therapy. Of the 17 patients enrolled, we obtained 22 samples (11 in the conventional nasal cannula group and 11 in the HFNC group). Viral RNA was detected in 20 nasopharyngeal swabs, and viable viruses were isolated from three nasopharyngeal swabs. Neither viral RNA nor viable virus was detected in the air sample at 0.5 m regardless of the oxygen-supplementation device. We detected viral RNA in two samples in the conventional nasal cannula group but not in the HFNC therapy group in gelatin filters located 3 m from the patient and the surface of the ventilation. This study directly demonstrated that despite viral RNA detection in the nasopharynx, viruses may not be dispersed by HFNC therapy. This warrants further research to determine if similar results can be obtained under different conditions.

Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Aerosols Dispersed During Noninvasive Respiratory Support of Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) therapies such as high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) were central to respiratory care. The extent to which these treatments increase the generation and dispersion of infectious respiratory aerosols is not fully understood. The objective of this study was to characterize SARS-CoV-2 aerosol dispersion from subjects with COVID-19 undergoing NRS therapy. METHODS: Several different aerosol sampling devices were used to collect air samples in the vicinity of 31 subjects with COVID-19, most of whom were receiving NRS therapy, primarily HFNC. Aerosols were collected onto filters and analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Additional measurements were collected in an aerosol chamber with healthy adult subjects using respiratory therapy devices under controlled and reproducible conditions. RESULTS: Fifty aerosol samples were collected from subjects receiving HFNC or NIV therapy, whereas 6 samples were collected from subjects not receiving NRS. Only 4 of the 56 aerosol samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and all positive samples were collected using a high air flow scavenger mask collection device placed in close proximity to the subject. The chamber measurements with healthy subjects did not show any significant increase in aerosol dispersion caused by the respiratory therapy devices compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate very limited detection of SARS-CoV-2-containing aerosols in the vicinity of subjects with COVID-19 receiving NRS therapies in the clinical setting. These results, combined with controlled chamber measurements showing that HFNC and NIV device usage was not associated with increased aerosol dispersion, suggest that NRS therapies do not result in increased dispersal of aerosols in the clinical setting.

Clinical practice of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in COVID-19 pandemic era: a cross-sectional survey of respiratory physicians.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid widespread use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, its indications and appropriate use as perceived by physicians remain poorly known. METHODS: In September 2021, we sent a questionnaire to each respiratory physician from 15 institutions in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan. In this survey, we compared the perceptions of HFNC indications and interventions during implementation to those of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Furthermore, this study examined concerns about SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress experienced among respondents. RESULTS: Of the 140 respiratory physicians contacted, 87 (62.1%) completed the survey. The results indicate that 96.5% of the respondents agreed with the indication of HFNC for COVID-19, whereas only 13.7% agreed with NIV. The physicians reported that patients with HFNC had a lower frequency of sustained sedation, physical restraint, and implementation in the ICU than that of patients with NIV and IMV. The HFNC was introduced as a respiratory modality following conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with COVID-19, regardless of full or do-not-intubate codes. Additionally, they reported that patients with COVID-19 switched from COT to HFNC significantly earlier than those without COVID-19. Simultaneously, this survey revealed persistent concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress (47.1% and 53.3%, respectively) among respiratory physicians during HFNC use. CONCLUSION: Clinically, HFNC is considered useful for COVID-19 patients by most respiratory physicians. However, HFNC remains a concern for COVID-19 spread and psychological distress among several respiratory physicians, indicating the need for urgent action.

Characteristics and Results of Hospital Admission Caused by Influenza Virus Infections in Children under 5 Years Old.

AIMS: The influenza virus is an infectious disease with acute respiratory tract infections, caused secondary bacterial infections and death. In this study, we aimed to determine which predictors were associated with the need for high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and transition to intensive care for influenza virus and also to compare single viral pathogens with multiple ones. METHODS: Inpatients under the age of 5 with influenza virus-related respiratory tract infections between November 2015 and March 2019 were included in the study. Demographic features, comorbidities, symptoms, secondary bacterial infection, need for HFNC and pediatric intensive care unit and respiratory support system, length of hospital stay, polymerase chain reaction tests were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were included in the study. It was determined that 53.8% of the cases were male and 84.9% were under the age of 2. Comorbidities were present in 50.5% of the cases. Secondary bacterial pneumonia developed in 56.9% of the cases. Patients with secondary bacterial pneumonia had higher PICU need, HFNC need and hospital stay (p = 0.014, p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively). Patients with comorbidity had longer hospital stays and a higher need for HFNC (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, it was determined that especially comorbidity and secondary bacterial infection aggravated the clinical treatment of hospitalized patients. Therefore, it was concluded that patients with comorbidity should be followed closely and secondary bacterial pneumonia should be recognized and treated early.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Patients With COVID-19: Predictive Response Factors.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pneumonia has been responsible for many ICU patients' admissions with hypoxemic respiratory failure, and oxygen therapy is one of the pillars of its treatment. The current pandemic scenario has limited the availability of ICU beds and access to invasive ventilation equipment. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can reduce the need for orotracheal intubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy, providing better results than noninvasive respiratory support. However, HFNC use has been controversial due to concerns about the benefits and risks of aerosol dispersion. In this context, we evaluated the performance of the HFNC therapy in patients with COVID-19 and investigated factors that can predict favorable responses. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted, which included hospitalized adult subjects with COVID-19 in the respiratory wards who needed oxygen therapy. Clinical and laboratory parameters were collected to compare HFNC therapy use and the outcomes. RESULTS: In 6 months, 128 subjects were included and the success rate of HFNC therapy was 53%. Logistic regression analysis showed that the Charlson comorbidity score, need for oxygen flow, [Formula: see text], and breathing frequency predicted therapy failure. The mortality rate increased among the non-responders versus the responders (47% vs 3%), 48% of failure occurred in the first 24 h of the HFNC therapy. A ROX (respiratory frequency - oxygenation) index > 4.98 in 6 h and > 4.53 in 24 h predicted success of the HFNC therapy with an area under the curve of 0.7, and a ROX index < 3.47 predicted failure with 88% of specificity. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC in the subjects with COVID-19 was associated with reduced mortality and improved oxygenation in the subjects with respiratory distress. Close monitoring of specific parameters defines eligible patients and rapidly identifies those in need of invasive ventilatory support.

Nasal High-Flow Therapy during Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal endotracheal intubation often involves more than one attempt, and oxygen desaturation is common. It is unclear whether nasal high-flow therapy, which extends the time to desaturation during elective intubation in children and adults receiving general anesthesia, can improve the likelihood of successful neonatal intubation on the first attempt. METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled trial to compare nasal high-flow therapy with standard care (no nasal high-flow therapy or supplemental oxygen) in neonates undergoing oral endotracheal intubation at two Australian tertiary neonatal intensive care units. Randomization of intubations to the high-flow group or the standard-care group was stratified according to trial center, the use of premedication for intubation (yes or no), and postmenstrual age of the infant (≤28 or >28 weeks). The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability (defined as an absolute decrease in the peripheral oxygen saturation of >20% from the preintubation baseline level or bradycardia with a heart rate of <100 beats per minute) in the infant. RESULTS: The primary intention-to-treat analysis included the outcomes of 251 intubations in 202 infants; 124 intubations were assigned to the high-flow group and 127 to the standard-care group. The infants had a median postmenstrual age of 27.9 weeks and a median weight of 920 g at the time of intubation. A successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability was achieved in 62 of 124 intubations (50.0%) in the high-flow group and in 40 of 127 intubations (31.5%) in the standard-care group (adjusted risk difference, 17.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.0 to 29.2), for a number needed to treat of 6 (95% CI, 4 to 17) for 1 infant to benefit. Successful intubation on the first attempt regardless of physiological stability was accomplished in 68.5% of the intubations in the high-flow group and in 54.3% of the intubations in the standard-care group (adjusted risk difference, 15.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.3 to 27.3). CONCLUSIONS: Among infants undergoing endotracheal intubation at two Australian tertiary neonatal intensive care units, nasal high-flow therapy during the procedure improved the likelihood of successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability in the infant. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12618001498280.).

Effects of non-invasive respiratory supports on inspiratory effort in moderate-severe COVID-19 patients. A randomized physiological study.

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.

Closed-loop oxygen control improves oxygen therapy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients under high flow nasal oxygen: a randomized cross-over study (the HILOOP study).

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy of a closed-loop oxygen control in critically ill patients with moderate to severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) treated with high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). METHODS: In this single-centre, single-blinded, randomized crossover study, adult patients with moderate to severe AHRF who were treated with HFNO (flow rate ≥ 40 L/min with FiO2 ≥ 0.30) were randomly assigned to start with a 4-h period of closed-loop oxygen control or 4-h period of manual oxygen titration, after which each patient was switched to the alternate therapy. The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent in the individualized optimal SpO2 range. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included. Patients spent more time in the optimal SpO2 range with closed-loop oxygen control compared with manual titrations of oxygen (96.5 [93.5 to 98.9] % vs. 89 [77.4 to 95.9] %; p < 0.0001) (difference estimate, 10.4 (95% confidence interval 5.2 to 17.2). Patients spent less time in the suboptimal range during closed-loop oxygen control, both above and below the cut-offs of the optimal SpO2 range, and less time above the suboptimal range. Fewer number of manual adjustments per hour were needed with closed-loop oxygen control. The number of events of SpO2 < 88% and < 85% were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop oxygen control improves oxygen administration in patients with moderate-to-severe AHRF treated with HFNO, increasing the percentage of time in the optimal oxygenation range and decreasing the workload of healthcare personnel. These results are especially relevant in a context of limited oxygen supply and high medical demand, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration The HILOOP study was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov under the identifier NCT04965844 .

Effect of Prone Positioning on Clinical Outcomes of Non-Intubated Subjects With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been recently proposed as an adjunctive treatment for non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring oxygen therapy to improve oxygenation and reduce the risk of intubation. However, the magnitude of the effect of APP on clinical outcomes in these patients remains uncertain. We performed a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of APP to improve the clinical outcomes in non-intubated subjects with COVID-19. METHODS: The primary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation and mortality. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference with the corresponding 95% CI were obtained by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (5 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 9 observational studies) involving 3,324 subjects (1,495 received APP and 1,829 did not) were included. There was a significant reduction in the mortality rate in APP group compared to control (RR 0.68 [95% CI 0.51-0.90]; P = .008, I2 = 52%) with no significant effect on intubation (RR 0.85 [95% CI 0.66-1.08]; P = .17, I2 = 63%) or hospital length of stay (mean difference -3.09 d [95% CI-10.14-3.96]; P = .39, I2 = 97%). Subgroup analysis of RCTs showed significant reduction in intubation rate (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.72-0.97]; P = .02, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: APP has the potential to reduce the in-hospital mortality rate in COVID-19 subjects with hypoxemia without a significant effect on the need for intubation or length of hospital stay. However, there was a significant decrease in the need for intubation on subgroup analysis of RCTs. More large-scale trials with a standardized protocol for prone positioning are needed to better evaluate its effectiveness in this select population.

High-flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raging around the world, the effectiveness of respiratory support treatment has dominated people's field of vision. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and value of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review via PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, WHO database, China Biology Medicine Disc (SINOMED), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to analyze the results and risk of bias. The primary outcome is the number of deaths at day 28. The secondary outcomes are the occurrence of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), the number of deaths (no time-limited), length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, ventilator-free days, and oxygenation index [partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inhaled oxygen (FiO2)] at 24 h. RESULTS: In total, nine studies [one randomized controlled trial (RCT), seven retrospective studies, and one prospective study] totaling 1582 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the incidence of IMV, number of deaths (no time-limited), and length of ICU stay were not statistically significant in the HFNC group compared with the NIV group (ps = 0.71, 0.31, and 0.33, respectively). Whereas the HFNC group performed significant advantages in terms of the number of deaths at day 28, length of hospital stay and oxygenation index (p < 0.05). Only in the ventilator-free days did NIV show advantages over the HFNC group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 patients, the use of HFNC therapy is associated with the reduction of the number of deaths at day 28 and length of hospital stay, and can significantly improve oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2) at 24 h. However, there was no favorable between the HFNC and NIV groups in the occurrence of IMV. NIV group was superior only in terms of ventilator-free days.

The application of a surgical face mask over different oxygen delivery devices; a crossover study of measured end-tidal oxygen concentrations.

BACKGROUND: The application of a surgical face mask over oxygen delivery devices is now a widespread recommendation in the setting of the Coronavirus disease pandemic. This addition is designed to reduce droplet spread, but this also changes the nature of these devices, and may alter the amount of oxygen delivered to a patient. This research investigated how placing a surgical face mask over both a simple plastic mask ("Hudson mask") and nasal cannula altered the concentration of available oxygen measured at the nares. METHODS: We measured the inspired and end-tidal oxygen concentrations of five healthy non-smoking volunteers. Oxygen was delivered via nasal cannula and also a simple plastic face mask, at flow rates of 2, 4, 6 and 8 l per minute, with and without an overlying surgical face mask. RESULTS: Adding a surgical mask over nasal cannula caused an appreciable rise in the end-tidal oxygen concentrations at all the measured oxygen flow rates 2, 4, 6, 8 L/minute. With the Hudson mask, there was a rise in oxygen concentration at 4 and 6 L/minute. For example, at a flow rate of 4 l/min via nasal cannula, available oxygen concentration increased from 24 to 36%, and via the Hudson mask the concentration rose from 27 to 38%. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a surgical face mask over both nasal cannula and a Hudson mask resulted in an increased available oxygen concentration. This may be valuable where more advanced oxygen devices are not available, or alternatively providing adequate supplemental oxygen at lower flow rates and thus making critical savings in oxygen usage.

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

Oxygen therapy limiting peripheral oxygen saturation to 89-93% is associated with a better survival prognosis for critically ill COVID-19 patients at high altitudes.

Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure automatically receive oxygen therapy to improve inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2). Supplemental oxygen is the most prescribed drug for critically ill patients regardless of altitude of residence. In high altitude dwellers (i.e. in La Paz [≈3,400 m] and El Alto [≈4,150 m] in Bolivia), a peripheral oxygen saturation (SatpO2) of 89-95% and an arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) of 50-67 mmHg (lower as altitude rises), are considered normal values ​​for arterial blood. Consequently, it has been suggested that limiting oxygen therapy to maintain SatpO2 around normoxia may help avoid episodes of hypoxemia, hyperoxemia, intermittent hypoxemia, and ultimately, mortality. In this study, we evaluated the impact of oxygen therapy on the mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients who permanently live at high altitudes. A multicenter cross-sectional descriptive observational study was performed on 100 patients admitted to the ICU at the "Clinica Los Andes" (in La Paz city) and "Agramont" and "Del Norte" Hospitals (in El Alto city). Our results show that: 1) as expected, fatal cases were detected only in patients who required intubation and connection to invasive mechanical ventilation as a last resort to overcome their life-threatening desaturation; 2) among intubated patients, prolonged periods in normoxia are associated with survival, prolonged periods in hypoxemia are associated with death, and time spent in hyperoxemia shows no association with survival or mortality; 3) the oxygenation limits required to effectively support the intubated patients' survival in the ICU are between 89% and 93%; 4) among intubated patients with similar periods of normoxemic oxygenation, those with better SOFA scores survive; and 5) a lower frequency of observable reoxygenation events is not associated with survival. In conclusion, our findings indicate that high-altitude patients entering an ICU at altitudes of 3,400 - 4,150 m should undergo oxygen therapy to maintain oxygenation levels between 89 and 93 %.

Airborne particle dispersion by high flow nasal oxygen: An experimental and CFD analysis.

High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) therapy offers a proven means of delivering respiratory support to critically ill patients suffering from viral illness such as COVID-19. However, the therapy has the potential to modify aerosol generation and dispersion patterns during exhalation and thereby put healthcare workers at increased risk of disease transmission. Fundamentally, a gap exists in the literature with regards to the effect of the therapy on the fluid dynamics of the exhalation jet which is essential in understanding the dispersion of aerosols and hence quantifying the disease transmission risk posed by the therapy. In this paper, a multi-faceted approach was taken to studying the aerosol-laden exhalation jet. Schlieren imaging was used to visualise the flow field for a range of expiratory activities for three healthy human volunteers receiving HFNO therapy at flow rates of 0-60 L/min. A RANS turbulence model was implemented using the CFD software OpenFOAM and used to perform a parametric study on the influence of exhalation velocity and duration on the dispersion patterns of non-evaporating droplets in a room environment. A dramatic increase in the turbulence of the exhalation jet was observed when HFNO was applied. Quantitative analysis indicated that the mean exhalation velocity was increased by 2.2-3.9 and 2.3-3 times that for unassisted breathing and coughing, respectively. A 1-2 second increase was found in the exhalation duration. The CFD model showed that small droplets (10-40 µm) were most greatly affected, where a 1 m/s increase in velocity and 1 s increase in duration caused an 80% increase in axial travel distance.

Impact of exposure time in awake prone positioning on clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (ARF), awake prone positioning (AW-PP) reduces the need for intubation in patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, the effects of different exposure times on clinical outcomes remain unclear. We evaluated the effect of AW-PP on the risk of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19-related ARF treated with HFNO and analyzed the effects of different exposure times to AW-PP. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study in six ICUs of 6 centers in Argentine consecutively included patients > 18 years of age with confirmed COVID-19-related ARF requiring HFNO from June 2020 to January 2021. In the primary analysis, the main exposure was awake prone positioning for at least 6 h/day, compared to non-prone positioning (NON-PP). In the sensitivity analysis, exposure was based on the number of hours receiving AW-PP. Inverse probability weighting-propensity score (IPW-PS) was used to adjust the conditional probability of treatment assignment. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI); and the secondary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 580 patients were screened and 335 were included; 187 (56%) tolerated AW-PP for [median (p25-75)] 12 (9-16) h/day and 148 (44%) served as controls. The IPW-propensity analysis showed standardized differences < 0.1 in all the variables assessed. After adjusting for other confounders, the OR (95% CI) for ETI in the AW-PP group was 0.36 (0.2-0.7), with a progressive reduction in OR as the exposure to AW-PP increased. The adjusted OR (95% CI) for hospital mortality in the AW-PP group ≥ 6 h/day was 0.47 (0.19-1.31). The exposure to prone positioning ≥ 8 h/d resulted in a further reduction in OR [0.37 (0.17-0.8)]. CONCLUSION: In the study population, AW-PP for ≥ 6 h/day reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation, and exposure ≥ 8 h/d reduced the risk of hospital mortality.

Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.