Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 66
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 305, 2021 08 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1582036

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Awake prone position is an emerging rescue therapy applied in patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) related to novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Although applied to stabilize respiratory status, in awake patients, the application of prone position may reduce comfort with a consequent increase in the workload imposed on respiratory muscles. Thus, we primarily ascertained the effect of awake prone position on diaphragmatic thickening fraction, assessed through ultrasound, in COVID-19 patients undergoing NIV. METHODS: We enrolled all COVID-19 adult critically ill patients, admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for hypoxemic ARF and undergoing NIV, deserving of awake prone positioning as a rescue therapy. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy and any contraindication to awake prone position and NIV. On ICU admission, after NIV onset, in supine position, and at 1 h following awake prone position application, diaphragmatic thickening fraction was obtained on the right side. Across all the study phases, NIV was maintained with the same setting present at study entry. Vital signs were monitored throughout the entire study period. Comfort was assessed through numerical rating scale (0 the worst comfort and 10 the highest comfort level). Data were presented in median and 25th-75th percentile range. RESULTS: From February to May 2021, 20 patients were enrolled and finally analyzed. Despite peripheral oxygen saturation improvement [96 (94-97)% supine vs 98 (96-99)% prone, p = 0.008], turning to prone position induced a worsening in comfort score from 7.0 (6.0-8.0) to 6.0 (5.0-7.0) (p = 0.012) and an increase in diaphragmatic thickening fraction from 33.3 (25.7-40.5)% to 41.5 (29.8-50.0)% (p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: In our COVID-19 patients assisted by NIV in ICU, the application of awake prone position improved the oxygenation at the expense of a greater diaphragmatic thickening fraction compared to supine position. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04904731. Registered on 05/25/2021, retrospectively registered. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04904731 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Wakefulness , Adult , Diaphragm , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/prevention & control , Prospective Studies
4.
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
6.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 327, 2021 09 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1403254

ABSTRACT

A helmet, comprising a transparent hood and a soft collar, surrounding the patient's head can be used to deliver noninvasive ventilatory support, both as continuous positive airway pressure and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), the latter providing active support for inspiration. In this review, we summarize the technical aspects relevant to this device, particularly how to prevent CO2 rebreathing and improve patient-ventilator synchrony during NPPV. Clinical studies describe the application of helmets in cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, pneumonia, COVID-19, postextubation and immune suppression. A section is dedicated to paediatric use. In summary, helmet therapy can be used safely and effectively to provide NIV during hypoxemic respiratory failure, improving oxygenation and possibly leading to better patient-centred outcomes than other interfaces.


Subject(s)
Interactive Ventilatory Support/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Work of Breathing/physiology , COVID-19 , Humans , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
7.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 17730, 2021 09 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397894

ABSTRACT

The efficacy of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection remains controversial. Current literature mainly examined efficacy, safety and potential predictors of NIV failure provided out of the intensive care unit (ICU). On the contrary, the outcomes of ICU patients, intubated after NIV failure, remain to be explored. The aims of the present study are: (1) investigating in-hospital mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ICU patients receiving endotracheal intubation after NIV failure and (2) assessing whether the length of NIV application affects patient survival. This observational multicenter study included all consecutive COVID-19 adult patients, admitted into the twenty-five ICUs of the COVID-19 VENETO ICU network (February-April 2020), who underwent endotracheal intubation after NIV failure. Among the 704 patients admitted to ICU during the study period, 280 (40%) presented the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The median age was 69 [60-76] years; 219 patients (78%) were male. In-hospital mortality was 43%. Only the length of NIV application before ICU admission (OR 2.03 (95% CI 1.06-4.98), p = 0.03) and age (OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.04-1.33), p < 0.01) were identified as independent risk factors of in-hospital mortality; whilst the length of NIV after ICU admission did not affect patient outcome. In-hospital mortality of ICU patients intubated after NIV failure was 43%. Days on NIV before ICU admission and age were assessed to be potential risk factors of greater in-hospital mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/physiology
8.
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
10.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 13418, 2021 06 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286475

ABSTRACT

In patients intubated for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) related to novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we retrospectively compared two weaning strategies, early extubation with immediate non-invasive ventilation (NIV) versus standard weaning encompassing spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), with respect to IMV duration (primary endpoint), extubation failures and reintubations, rate of tracheostomy, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and mortality (additional endpoints). All COVID-19 adult patients, intubated for hypoxemic ARF and subsequently extubated, were enrolled. Patients were included in two groups, early extubation followed by immediate NIV application, and conventionally weaning after passing SBT. 121 patients were enrolled and analyzed, 66 early extubated and 55 conventionally weaned after passing an SBT. IMV duration was 9 [6-11] days in early extubated patients versus 11 [6-15] days in standard weaning group (p = 0.034). Extubation failures [12 (18.2%) vs. 25 (45.5%), p = 0.002] and reintubations [12 (18.2%) vs. 22 (40.0%) p = 0.009] were fewer in early extubation compared to the standard weaning groups, respectively. Rate of tracheostomy, ICU mortality, and ICU length of stay were no different between groups. Compared to standard weaning, early extubation followed by immediate NIV shortened IMV duration and reduced the rate of extubation failure and reintubation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/pathology , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Ventilator Weaning/methods , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Comorbidity , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Time Factors , Tracheostomy
11.
Respiration ; 100(9): 909-917, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1270908

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Switzerland, confinement was imposed to limit transmission and protect vulnerable persons. These measures may have had a negative impact on perceived quality of care and symptoms in patients with chronic disorders. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients under long-term home noninvasive ventilation (LTHNIV) for chronic respiratory failure (CRF) were negatively affected by the 56-day confinement (March-April 2020). METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey exploring mood disturbances (HAD), symptom scores related to NIV (S3-NIV), and perception of health-care providers during confinement was sent to all patients under LTHNIV followed up by our center. Symptom scores and data obtained by ventilator software were compared between confinement and the 56 days prior to confinement. RESULTS: Of a total of 100 eligible patients, 66 were included (median age: 66 years [IQR: 53-74]): 35 (53%) with restrictive lung disorders, 20 (30%) with OHS or SRBD, and 11 (17%) with COPD or overlap syndrome. Prevalence of anxiety (n = 7; 11%) and depressive (n = 2; 3%) disorders was remarkably low. Symptom scores were slightly higher during confinement although this difference was not clinically relevant. Technical data regarding ventilation, including compliance, did not change. Patients complained of isolation and lack of social contact. They felt supported by their relatives and caregivers but complained of the lack of regular contact and information by health-care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients under LTHNIV for CRF showed a remarkable resilience during the SARS-CoV-2 confinement period. Comments provided may be helpful for managing similar future health-care crises.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , Home Care Services/standards , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Chronic Disease , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Long-Term Care/methods , Male , Mood Disorders/epidemiology , Mood Disorders/physiopathology , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Qualitative Research , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/psychology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Support , Switzerland/epidemiology , Symptom Assessment/methods , Symptom Assessment/statistics & numerical data
12.
Respir Med ; 185: 106481, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1253572

ABSTRACT

Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) outside of the ICU has played an important role in the management of COVID-19 pneumonia. There is little data to guide selection of NRS modality. We present outcomes of NRS outside the ICU and discuss the effects of NRS on gas exchange with implications for management.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Intensive Care Units , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Pulmonary Gas Exchange/physiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome
13.
JAMA ; 325(17): 1731-1743, 2021 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241490

ABSTRACT

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Treatment Failure
14.
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.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 89(6): 1092-1098, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1214720

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a lifesaving strategy for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aim to report the case series of critical patients receiving IMV in Wuhan and to discuss the timing of IMV in these patients. METHODS: Data of 657 patients admitted to emergency intensive care unit of Zhongnan Hospital and isolated isolation wards of Wuhan Union Hospital from January 1 to March 10, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. All medical records of 40 COVID-19 patients who required IMV were collected at different time points, including baseline (at admission), before receiving IMV, and before death or hospital discharge. RESULTS: Among 40 COVID-19 patients with IMV, 31 died, and 9 survived and was discharged. The median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR], 62-76 years), and nonsurvivors were older than survivors. The median period from the noninvasive mechanic ventilation (NIV) or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) to intubation was 7 hours (IQR, 2-42 hours) in IMV survivors and 54 hours (IQR, 28-143 hours) in IMV nonsurvivors. We observed that, when the time interval from NIV/HFNC to intubation was less than 50 hours (about 2 calendar days), together with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score of less than 10 or pneumonia severity index (PSI) score of less than 100, mortality can be reduced to 60% or less. Prolonged interval from NIV/HFNC to intubation and high levels of APACHE II and PSI before intubation were associated with higher mortality in critically ill patients. Multiple organ damage was common among these nonsurvivors in the course of treatment. CONCLUSION: Early initial intubation after NIV/HFNC might have a beneficial effect in reducing mortality for critically ill patients meeting IMV indication. Considering APACHE II and PSI scores might help physicians in decision making about timing of intubation for curbing subsequent mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , APACHE , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Critical Illness/mortality , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
17.
JAMA ; 325(17): 1731-1743, 2021 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1148761

ABSTRACT

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Treatment Failure
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD010172, 2021 03 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1116499

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO2/FiO2 may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.


Subject(s)
Critical Care/methods , Intubation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Acute Disease , Adult , Barotrauma/epidemiology , Bias , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intubation/adverse effects , Intubation/instrumentation , Length of Stay , Masks , Nasal Mucosa/injuries , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Pneumonia/epidemiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Treatment Failure
20.
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis ; 90(4)2020 Dec 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1060455

ABSTRACT

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has distinct clinical manifestations that can vary from an asymptomatic condition to severe acute respiratory failure. Phenotypes are attributable to different pathophysiological mechanisms and require different treatment strategies. The assessment and identification of different phenotypes can guide therapy configurations such as oxygen therapy, non-invasive ventilation, airway management, and tracheal intubation. Further studies are essential to provide information on the influence of phenotypes in the decision of rehabilitation strategies. The sequelae left in the respiratory system of COVID-19 survivors and its limitations will be a challenge for rehabilitation services worldwide. Lung injuries are directly related to the phenotypes presented, and depending on the degree of these injuries, rehabilitation strategies can be targeted. We believe that differentiating patients, according to their respective phenotypes, can improve decision-making in treatment and individualized rehabilitation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/rehabilitation , Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Airway Management/methods , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Decision-Making , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Phenotype , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/complications , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/therapy , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/virology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...