Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 24
Filter
1.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 118, 2022 04 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1817234

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whether prone position (PP) improves clinical outcomes in COVID-19 pneumonia treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is unknown. We evaluated the effect of early PP on 28-day NIV failure, intubation and death in noninvasively ventilated patients with moderate-to-severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia and explored physiological mechanisms underlying treatment response. METHODS: In this controlled non-randomized trial, 81 consecutive prospectively enrolled patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate-to-severe (paO2/FiO2 ratio < 200) acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with early PP + NIV during Dec 2020-May 2021were compared with 162 consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia matched for age, mortality risk, severity of illness and paO2/FiO2 ratio at admission, treated with conventional (supine) NIV during Apr 2020-Dec 2020 at HUMANITAS Gradenigo Subintensive Care Unit, after propensity score adjustment for multiple baseline and treatment-related variables to limit confounding. Lung ultrasonography (LUS) was performed at baseline and at day 5. Ventilatory parameters, physiological dead space indices (DSIs) and circulating inflammatory and procoagulative biomarkers were monitored during the initial 7 days. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis. NIV failure occurred in 14 (17%) of PP patients versus 70 (43%) of controls [HR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.21-0.50; p < 0.0001]; intubation in 8 (11%) of PP patients versus 44 (30%) of controls [HR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.55; p = 0.0012], death in 10 (12%) of PP patients versus 59 (36%) of controls [HR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.44; p < 0.0001]. The effect remained significant within different categories of severity of hypoxemia (paO2/FiO2 < 100 or paO2/FiO2 100-199 at admission). Adverse events were rare and evenly distributed. Compared with controls, PP therapy was associated with improved oxygenation and DSIs, reduced global LUS severity indices largely through enhanced reaeration of dorso-lateral lung regions, and an earlier decline in inflammatory markers and D-dimer. In multivariate analysis, day 1 CO2 response outperformed O2 response as a predictor of LUS changes, NIV failure, intubation and death. CONCLUSION: Early prolonged PP is safe and is associated with lower NIV failure, intubation and death rates in noninvasively ventilated patients with COVID-19-related moderate-to-severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. Early dead space reduction and reaeration of dorso-lateral lung regions predicted clinical outcomes in our study population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN23016116 . Retrospectively registered on May 1, 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Prone Position , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Crit Care ; 69: 153989, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1814662

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Acute lung injury associated with COVID-19 contributes significantly to its morbidity and mortality. Though invasive mechanical ventilation is sometimes necessary, the use of high flow nasal oxygen may avoid the need for mechanical ventilation in some patients. For patients approaching the limits of high flow nasal oxygen support, addition of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators is becoming more common but little is known about its effects. This is the first descriptive study of a cohort of patients receiving inhaled epoprostenol with high flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected clinical data from the first fifty patients to receive inhaled epoprostenol while on high flow nasal oxygen at our institution. We compared the characteristics of patients who did and did not respond to epoprostenol addition. RESULTS: The 18 patients that did not stabilize or improve following initiation of inhaled epoprostenol had similar rates of invasive mechanical ventilation as those who improved or stabilized (50% vs 56%). Rates of mortality were not significantly different between the two groups (17% and 31%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of inhaled epoprostenol with high flow nasal oxygen is feasible, but physiologic signs of response were not related to clinical outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/drug therapy , Cannula , Epoprostenol/therapeutic use , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Oxygen , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
3.
Sci Prog ; 105(2): 368504221092891, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1784977

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/epidemiology , Head Protective Devices/adverse effects , Humans , Hypoxia/complications , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Pandemics , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
4.
Ther Adv Respir Dis ; 16: 17534666221087847, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759662

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
5.
Trials ; 23(1): 218, 2022 Mar 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1745430

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is indicated to avoid orotracheal intubation (OTI) to reduce hospital stay and mortality. Patients infected by SARS-CoV2 can progress to respiratory failure (RF); however, in the initial phase, they can be submitted to oxygen therapy and NIV. Such resources can produce aerosol and can cause a high risk of contagion to health professionals. Safe NIV strategies are sought, and therefore, the authors adapted diving masks to be used as NIV masks (called an Owner mask). OBJECTIVE: To assess the Owner mask safety and effectiveness regarding conventional orofacial mask for patients in respiratory failure with and without confirmation or suspicion of COVID-19. METHODS: A Brazilian multicentric study to assess patients admitted to the intensive care unit regarding their clinical, sociodemographic and anthropometric data. The primary outcome will be the rate of tracheal intubation, and secondary outcomes will include in-hospital mortality, the difference in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and PaCO2 levels, time in the intensive care unit and hospitalization time, adverse effects, degree of comfort and level of satisfaction of the mask use, success rate of NIV (not progressing to OTI), and behavior of the ventilatory variables obtained in NIV with an Owner mask and with a conventional face mask. Patients with COVID-19 and clinical signs indicative of RF will be submitted to NIV with an Owner mask [NIV Owner COVID Group (n = 63)] or with a conventional orofacial mask [NIV orofacial COVID Group (n = 63)], and those patients in RF due to causes not related to COVID-19 will be allocated into the NIV Owner Non-COVID Group (n = 97) or to the NIV Orofacial Non-COVID Group (n = 97) in a randomized way, which will total 383 patients, admitting 20% for loss to follow-up. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized and controlled trial during the COVID-19 pandemic about the safety and effectiveness of the Owner mask compared to the conventional orofacial mask. Experimental studies have shown that the Owner mask enables adequate sealing on the patient's face and the present study is relevant as it aims to minimize the aerosolization of the virus in the environment and improve the safety of health professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC): RBR - 7xmbgsz . Registered on 15 April 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diving , Noninvasive Ventilation , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , RNA, Viral , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Trials ; 23(1): 105, 2022 Feb 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1666670

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support is frequently needed for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Helmet noninvasive ventilation has multiple advantages over other oxygen support modalities but data about effectiveness are limited. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial of helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients, 320 adult ICU patients (aged ≥14 years or as per local standards) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 200 despite supplemental oxygen with a partial/non-rebreathing mask at a flow rate of 10 L/min or higher) will be randomized to helmet noninvasive ventilation with usual care or usual care alone, which may include mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or standard oxygen therapy. The primary outcome is death from any cause within 28 days after randomization. The trial has 80% power to detect a 15% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality from 40 to 25%. The primary outcome will be compared between the helmet and usual care group in the intention-to-treat using the chi-square test. Results will be reported as relative risk  and 95% confidence interval. The first patient was enrolled on February 8, 2021. As of August 1, 2021, 252 patients have been enrolled from 7 centers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. DISCUSSION: We developed a detailed statistical analysis plan to guide the analysis of the Helmet-COVID trial, which is expected to conclude enrollment in November 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04477668 . Registered on July 20, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Head Protective Devices , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Respir Physiol Neurobiol ; 298: 103842, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1655093

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are the main forms of treatment for acute respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect, safety, and applicability of the NIV and HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we monitored the effect of NIV and HFNC on the SpO2 and respiratory rate before, during, and after treatment, length of stay, rates of endotracheal intubation, and mortality in patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19. Additionally, data regarding RT-PCR from physiotherapists who were directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19. RESULTS: 62.2 % of patients were treated with HFNC. ROX index increased during and after NIV and HFNC treatment (P < 0.05). SpO2 increased during NIV treatment (P < 0.05), but was not maintained after treatment (P = 0.17). In addition, there was no difference in the respiratory rate during or after the NIV (P = 0.95) or HFNC (P = 0.60) treatment. The mortality rate was 35.7 % for NIV vs 21.4 % for HFNC (P = 0.45), while the total endotracheal intubation rate was 57.1 % for NIV vs 69.6 % for HFNC (P = 0.49). Two adverse events occurred during treatment with NIV and eight occurred during treatment with HFNC. There was no difference in the physiotherapists who tested positive for SARS-COV-2 directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 ones (P = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The application of NIV and HFNC in the critical care unit is feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. In addition, there was no increase in the infection of physiotherapists with SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Rate/drug effects , Acute Disease , Administration, Inhalation , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Cannula/adverse effects , Cannula/standards , Cannula/statistics & numerical data , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/standards , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Physical Therapists , Positive-Pressure Respiration/adverse effects , Positive-Pressure Respiration/standards , Positive-Pressure Respiration/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Retrospective Studies
9.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 16(1): 67-77, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585329

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can be a useful resource to treat acute respiratory failure (ARF), which occurs in patients with COVID-19. However, it is important to consider that there are still no clinical studies that have verified the safety of its use in increase of contamination. AREAS COVERED: Given the potential benefits and simultaneous concerns over the use of NIV in patients with COVID-19, further inquiry is necessary to reach a clinical consensus and provide recommendations for safe use, avoiding contamination. In this context, this narrative review, which included articles published in the Embase, SciELO, PEDro, PubMed and Cochrane up to August 2021, is focused to evaluate available studies related to interfaces, types of circuits, recommended filters, cares for the environment and protective factors for NIV use in patients with COVID-19. EXPERT OPINION: The studies analyzed recommend that the use of NIV can be safe: 1) with equipment that allows the use of the helmet as a safer interface; 2) with double circuit and antimicrobial filter in the expiratory branch; 3) in an environment that allows negative pressure, reducing the dispersion of aerosol particles in the environment; 4) the health team must use the recommended PPE to avoid contamination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Chest ; 160(1): 175-186, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525725

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 aerosolization during noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation may endanger health care professionals. Various circuit setups have been described to reduce virus aerosolization. However, these setups may alter ventilator performance. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the consequences of the various suggested circuit setups on ventilator efficacy during CPAP and noninvasive ventilation (NIV)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eight circuit setups were evaluated on a bench test model that consisted of a three-dimensional printed head and an artificial lung. Setups included a dual-limb circuit with an oronasal mask, a dual-limb circuit with a helmet interface, a single-limb circuit with a passive exhalation valve, three single-limb circuits with custom-made additional leaks, and two single-limb circuits with active exhalation valves. All setups were evaluated during NIV and CPAP. The following variables were recorded: the inspiratory flow preceding triggering of the ventilator, the inspiratory effort required to trigger the ventilator, the triggering delay, the maximal inspiratory pressure delivered by the ventilator, the tidal volume generated to the artificial lung, the total work of breathing, and the pressure-time product needed to trigger the ventilator. RESULTS: With NIV, the type of circuit setup had a significant impact on inspiratory flow preceding triggering of the ventilator (P < .0001), the inspiratory effort required to trigger the ventilator (P < .0001), the triggering delay (P < .0001), the maximal inspiratory pressure (P < .0001), the tidal volume (P = .0008), the work of breathing (P < .0001), and the pressure-time product needed to trigger the ventilator (P < .0001). Similar differences and consequences were seen with CPAP as well as with the addition of bacterial filters. Best performance was achieved with a dual-limb circuit with an oronasal mask. Worst performance was achieved with a dual-limb circuit with a helmet interface. INTERPRETATION: Ventilator performance is significantly impacted by the circuit setup. A dual-limb circuit with oronasal mask should be used preferentially.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Noninvasive Ventilation , Air Filters , Benchmarking/methods , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/adverse effects , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/instrumentation , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Critical Pathways/standards , Critical Pathways/trends , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Research Design , Respiratory Function Tests/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Ventilators, Mechanical
11.
Chest ; 160(1): 175-186, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1298651

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 aerosolization during noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation may endanger health care professionals. Various circuit setups have been described to reduce virus aerosolization. However, these setups may alter ventilator performance. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the consequences of the various suggested circuit setups on ventilator efficacy during CPAP and noninvasive ventilation (NIV)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eight circuit setups were evaluated on a bench test model that consisted of a three-dimensional printed head and an artificial lung. Setups included a dual-limb circuit with an oronasal mask, a dual-limb circuit with a helmet interface, a single-limb circuit with a passive exhalation valve, three single-limb circuits with custom-made additional leaks, and two single-limb circuits with active exhalation valves. All setups were evaluated during NIV and CPAP. The following variables were recorded: the inspiratory flow preceding triggering of the ventilator, the inspiratory effort required to trigger the ventilator, the triggering delay, the maximal inspiratory pressure delivered by the ventilator, the tidal volume generated to the artificial lung, the total work of breathing, and the pressure-time product needed to trigger the ventilator. RESULTS: With NIV, the type of circuit setup had a significant impact on inspiratory flow preceding triggering of the ventilator (P < .0001), the inspiratory effort required to trigger the ventilator (P < .0001), the triggering delay (P < .0001), the maximal inspiratory pressure (P < .0001), the tidal volume (P = .0008), the work of breathing (P < .0001), and the pressure-time product needed to trigger the ventilator (P < .0001). Similar differences and consequences were seen with CPAP as well as with the addition of bacterial filters. Best performance was achieved with a dual-limb circuit with an oronasal mask. Worst performance was achieved with a dual-limb circuit with a helmet interface. INTERPRETATION: Ventilator performance is significantly impacted by the circuit setup. A dual-limb circuit with oronasal mask should be used preferentially.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Noninvasive Ventilation , Air Filters , Benchmarking/methods , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/adverse effects , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/instrumentation , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Critical Pathways/standards , Critical Pathways/trends , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Research Design , Respiratory Function Tests/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Ventilators, Mechanical
12.
Br J Anaesth ; 127(3): 353-364, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1293599

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 pneumonia is associated with hypoxaemic respiratory failure, ranging from mild to severe. Because of the worldwide shortage of ICU beds, a relatively high number of patients with respiratory failure are receiving prolonged noninvasive respiratory support, even when their clinical status would have required invasive mechanical ventilation. There are few experimental and clinical data reporting that vigorous breathing effort during spontaneous ventilation can worsen lung injury and cause a phenomenon that has been termed patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI). The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of P-SILI pathophysiology and the role of noninvasive respiratory support in COVID-19 pneumonia. Respiratory mechanics, vascular compromise, viscoelastic properties, lung inhomogeneity, work of breathing, and oesophageal pressure swings are discussed. The concept of P-SILI has been widely investigated in recent years, but controversies persist regarding its mechanisms. To minimise the risk of P-SILI, intensivists should better understand its underlying pathophysiology to optimise the type of noninvasive respiratory support provided to patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, and decide on the optimal timing of intubation for these patients.


Subject(s)
Acute Lung Injury/epidemiology , Acute Lung Injury/therapy , Anesthesiologists , COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiration, Artificial , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/epidemiology , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/therapy , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Positive-Pressure Respiration/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency , Respiratory Mechanics
13.
Br J Hosp Med (Lond) ; 82(6): 1-9, 2021 Jun 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1289252

ABSTRACT

Ventilatory support is vital for the management of severe forms of COVID-19. Non-invasive ventilation is often used in patients who do not meet criteria for intubation or when invasive ventilation is not available, especially in a pandemic when resources are limited. Despite non-invasive ventilation providing effective respiratory support for some forms of acute respiratory failure, data about its effectiveness in patients with viral-related pneumonia are inconclusive. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection causes life-threatening respiratory failure, weakening the lung parenchyma and increasing the risk of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma results from positive pressure ventilation leading to elevated transalveolar pressure, and in turn to alveolar rupture and leakage of air into the extra-alveolar tissue. This article reviews the literature regarding the use of non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other epidemic or pandemic viral infections and the related risk of barotrauma.


Subject(s)
Barotrauma/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/epidemiology , Humans , Risk Assessment
14.
Respir Med ; 185: 106474, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1240604

ABSTRACT

Hypoxemic respiratory failure is a common manifestation of COVID-19 pneumonia. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure were, at times, being intubated earlier than normal; in part because the options of heated humidified high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) were considered potentially inadequate and to increase risk of virus aerosolization. To understand the benefits and factors that predict success and failure of HFNC in this population, we evaluated data from the first 30 sequential patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia to our center who were managed with HFNC. We conducted Cox Proportional Hazards regression models to evaluate the factors associated with high flow nasal cannula failure (outcome variable), using time to intubation (censoring variable), while adjusting for comorbidities and immunosuppression. In the majority of our patients (76.7%), the use of HFNC failed and the patients were ultimately placed on mechanical ventilation. Those at increased risk of failure had a higher sequential organ failure assessment score, and at least one comorbidity or history of immunosuppression. Our data suggest that high flow nasal cannula may have a role in some patients with COVID-19 presenting with hypoxemic respiratory failure, but careful patient selection is the likely key to its success.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cannula/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Pandemics , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Equipment Failure , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Minerva Med ; 112(3): 329-337, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1239284

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has high mortality rate mainly stemming from acute respiratory distress leading to respiratory failure (ARF). Aim of the study was to evaluate the management of severe ARF due to COVID-19 pneumonia using noninvasive ventilatory support (NIVS), studying safety and effectiveness of NIVS. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter study. Primary outcomes were NIVS failure with intubation rate and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital stay and factors related to NIVS failure and mortality. These outcomes were compared with patients intubated and admitted to ICU. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were hospitalized because of severe respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio <250). One hundred thirty-eight patients were admitted to Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit (RICU) for a NIVS trial. One hundred patients were treated successfully with NIVS (74.5%); 38 failed NIVS trial (27.5%). In-hospital mortality was 23.18% in RICU group and 30.55% in ICU group. Patients with NIVS failure were older, had a lower number of lymphocytes, a higher IL-6, lower PaO2, PaC O2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, higher respiratory rate (RR) and heart rate at admission and lower PaO2, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio and higher RR after 1-6 hours. Multivariate analysis identified higher age, C-reactive protein as well as RR after 1-6 hours and PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1-6 hours as an independent predictor mortality. CONCLUSIONS: NIVS is a safe and effective strategy in the treatment of severe ARF due to COVID-19 related pneumonia, that reduces mortality and length of hospital stay in the carefully selected patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Acute Disease , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Heart Rate , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure , Treatment Outcome
16.
BMJ Case Rep ; 14(3)2021 Mar 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1148110

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2, causing the pandemic COVID-19, has rapidly spread, overwhelming healthcare systems. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) can be used as a bridging therapy to delay invasive mechanical ventilation or as a standalone therapy. Spontaneous pneumomediastinum is rare and self-limiting, but there is an increased incidence documented in COVID-19.Here we document two cases of pneumomediastinum-related prolonged NIV therapy in severe COVID-19. Patient 1, a 64-year-old man, who developed symptoms after NIV therapy was weaned and survived. Patient 2, an 82-year-old woman, failed to improve despite NIV therapy, on investigation was found to have a pneumomediastinum. After review, the patient was placed on best supportive care and died 3 days later.We highlight the importance of recognising less common causes of deterioration in severe COVID-19 treated with NIV. In addition, pneumomediastinum in these cases may not always lead to poor outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Mediastinal Emphysema/etiology , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Positive-Pressure Respiration/adverse effects , Aged, 80 and over , Conservative Treatment , Diagnosis, Differential , Fatal Outcome , Female , Humans , Male , Mediastinal Emphysema/diagnostic imaging , Mediastinal Emphysema/therapy , Middle Aged , Radiography , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
17.
Minerva Med ; 112(3): 329-337, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1034290

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has high mortality rate mainly stemming from acute respiratory distress leading to respiratory failure (ARF). Aim of the study was to evaluate the management of severe ARF due to COVID-19 pneumonia using noninvasive ventilatory support (NIVS), studying safety and effectiveness of NIVS. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter study. Primary outcomes were NIVS failure with intubation rate and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital stay and factors related to NIVS failure and mortality. These outcomes were compared with patients intubated and admitted to ICU. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were hospitalized because of severe respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio <250). One hundred thirty-eight patients were admitted to Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit (RICU) for a NIVS trial. One hundred patients were treated successfully with NIVS (74.5%); 38 failed NIVS trial (27.5%). In-hospital mortality was 23.18% in RICU group and 30.55% in ICU group. Patients with NIVS failure were older, had a lower number of lymphocytes, a higher IL-6, lower PaO2, PaC O2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, higher respiratory rate (RR) and heart rate at admission and lower PaO2, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio and higher RR after 1-6 hours. Multivariate analysis identified higher age, C-reactive protein as well as RR after 1-6 hours and PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1-6 hours as an independent predictor mortality. CONCLUSIONS: NIVS is a safe and effective strategy in the treatment of severe ARF due to COVID-19 related pneumonia, that reduces mortality and length of hospital stay in the carefully selected patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Acute Disease , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Heart Rate , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure , Treatment Outcome
18.
Artif Organs ; 45(7): 754-761, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-978685

ABSTRACT

Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure (NIV-CPAP) is effective in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Building evidence during the COVID-19 emergency reported that around 50% of patients in Italy treated with NIV-CPAP avoided the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Standard NIV-CPAP systems operate at high gas flow rates responsible for noise generation and inadequate humidification. Furthermore, open-configuration systems require a high concentration of oxygen to deliver the desired FiO2 . Concerns outlined the risk for aerosolization in the ambient air and the possible pressure drop in hospital supply pipes. A new NIV-CPAP system is proposed that includes automatic control of patient respiratory parameters. The system operates as a closed-loop breathing circuit that can be assembled, combining a sleep apnea machine with existing commercially available components. Analytical simulation of a breathing patient and simulation with a healthy volunteer at different FiO2 were performed. Inspired and expired oxygen fraction and inspired and expired carbon dioxide pressure were recorded at different CPAP levels with different oxygen delivery. Among the main findings, we report (a) a significant (up to 30-fold) reduction in oxygen feeding compared to standard open high flow NIV-CPAP systems, to assure the same FiO2 levels, and (b) a negligible production of the noise generated in ventilatory systems, and consequent minimization of patients' discomfort. The proposed NIV-CPAP circuit, reshaped in closed-loop configuration with the blower outside of the circuit, has the advantages of minimizing aerosol generation, environmental contamination, oxygen consumption, and noise to the patient. The system is easily adaptable and can be implemented using standard CPAP components.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/instrumentation , Lung/virology , Noise/prevention & control , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Ventilators, Mechanical , Aerosols , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Computer Simulation , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/adverse effects , Equipment Design , Filtration/instrumentation , Humans , Lung/physiopathology , Noise/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Numerical Analysis, Computer-Assisted , Oxygen/adverse effects
19.
Trials ; 21(1): 867, 2020 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-883594

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for treatments that can shorten hospitalization and lower the risk of secondary infection and death in patients with corona disease. The ProPac-COVID trial evaluates whether combination therapy with macrolide azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine via anti-inflammation/immune modulation, antiviral efficacy, and pre-emptive treatment of supra-infections can shorten hospitalization duration and reduce the risk of non-invasive ventilation, treatment in the intensive care unit, and death in patients with acute hospital admission and a positive test for 2019-nCoV and symptoms of COVID-19 disease. METHODS: The ProPAC-COVID is a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial. The primary outcome is number of days spent alive and out of hospital within 14 days from randomization. Randomization will be in blocks of unknown size, and the final allocation will be stratified for age, site of recruitment, and whether the patient has any chronic lung diseases. Data is analyzed using intention-to-treat (ITT) principles, and main analyses will also be subject to modified ITT analysis and per protocol analysis. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the evaluation of primary and secondary endpoints of the ProPAC-COVID study. Enrolment of patients to the ProPAC-COVID study is still ongoing. The purpose of this paper is to provide primary publication of study results to prevent selective reporting of outcomes, data-driven analysis, and to increase transparency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04322396 . Registered on 26 March 2020.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antimalarials/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods , Antimalarials/adverse effects , Azithromycin/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Denmark/epidemiology , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Intention to Treat Analysis/methods , Male , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Placebos/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Reduction Behavior , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL