Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 89
Filter
2.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 88(11): 918-927, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2117561

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation may alter the morphology and histology of the upper airway mucosa. This study aimed to investigate the alterations of hypopharynx and oropharynx mucosa, identified during oro-tracheal intubation procedure via video-assisted laryngoscopy, in severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 related, treated by non-invasive ventilation via full-face mask or helmet. METHODS: Data of patients affected by Coronavirus 2 admitted to COVID Hospital of L'Aquila (Italy), presenting hypopharynx and oropharynx morphology alterations, requiring oro-tracheal intubation for invasive ventilation and initially treated with non-invasive ventilation were included in the study. The study aimed to investigate the upper airway mucosa alterations using oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal images and biopsies taken during video-assisted-laryngoscopy. Data from the hypopharynx and oropharynx morphology and histology alterations between non-invasive ventilation via a full-face mask or helmet used during hospitalization were compared. RESULTS: From 220 data recorded, 60 patients were included in the study and classified into non-invasive ventilation full-face mask group (30/60) and via helmet group. Comparing data between groups, significant differences were found with respect to hyperemia (77% vs. 20%), laryngeal bleeding ulcerations (87% vs. 13%), and vocal cord edema with >50% narrowing of the tracheal lumen (73% vs. 7%), respectively. The histology examination revealed fibrin-necrotic exudate with extensive necrotic degenerative changes in the sample tissue of the groups. There were not any differences in the duration time of non-invasive ventilation, time from hospitalization and the start of ventilation between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this research suggested that there were differences in airway mucosa damages among patients treated with a full-face mask or helmet. Further studies should be planned to understand which non-invasive ventilation support may mitigate upper airway mucosa damages when oro-tracheal intubation is requested for invasive respiratory support.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Masks , Head Protective Devices , Hypopharynx , Italy , COVID-19/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal , Oropharynx
3.
Trials ; 23(1): 218, 2022 Mar 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2098433

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
4.
JAMA ; 328(11): 1063-1072, 2022 09 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2047353

ABSTRACT

Importance: Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited. Objective: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency , Acute Disease , Barotrauma/etiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/mortality , Hypoxia/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
5.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(17)2022 Aug 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2006027

ABSTRACT

The intermediate respiratory care units (IRCUs) have a pivotal role managing escalation and de-escalation between the general wards and the intensive care units (ICUs). Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, the early detection of patients that could improve on non-invasive respiratory therapies (NRTs) in IRCUs without invasive approaches is crucial to ensure proper medical management and optimize limiting ICU resources. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with survival, ICU admission and intubation likelihood in COVID-19 patients admitted to IRCUs. Observational retrospective study in consecutive patients admitted to the IRCU of a tertiary hospital from March 2020 to April 2021. Inclusion criteria: hypoxemic respiratory failure (SpO2 ≤ 94% and/or respiratory rate ≥ 25 rpm with FiO2 > 50% supplementary oxygen) due to acute COVID-19 infection. Demographic, comorbidities, clinical and analytical data, and medical and NRT data were collected at IRCU admission. Multivariate logistic regression models assessed factors associated with survival, ICU admission, and intubation. From 679 patients, 79 patients (12%) had an order to not do intubation. From the remaining 600 (88%), 81% survived, 41% needed ICU admission and 37% required intubation. In the IRCU, 51% required non-invasive ventilation (NIV group) and 49% did not (non-NIV group). Older age and lack of corticosteroid treatment were associated with higher mortality and intubation risk in the scheme, which could be more beneficial in severe forms. Initial NIV does not always mean worse outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Pandemics , Respiratory Care Units , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies
6.
BMC Pulm Med ; 22(1): 304, 2022 Aug 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1976497

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been widely used in critically ill patients after extubation. However, NIV failure is associated with poor outcomes. This study aimed to determine early predictors of NIV failure and to construct an accurate machine-learning model to identify patients at risks of NIV failure after extubation in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Patients who underwent NIV after extubation in the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) were included. NIV failure was defined as need for invasive ventilatory support (reintubation or tracheotomy) or death after NIV initiation. A total of 93 clinical and laboratory variables were assessed, and the recursive feature elimination algorithm was used to select key features. Hyperparameter optimization was conducted with an automated machine-learning toolkit called Neural Network Intelligence. A machine-learning model called Categorical Boosting (CatBoost) was developed and compared with nine other models. The model was then prospectively validated among patients enrolled in the Cardiac Surgical ICU of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University. RESULTS: Of 929 patients included in the eICU-CRD cohort, 248 (26.7%) had NIV failure. The time from extubation to NIV, age, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, heart rate, respiratory rate, mean blood pressure (MBP), saturation of pulse oxygen (SpO2), temperature, glucose, pH, pressure of oxygen in blood (PaO2), urine output, input volume, ventilation duration, and mean airway pressure were selected. After hyperparameter optimization, our model showed the greatest accuracy in predicting NIV failure (AUROC: 0.872 [95% CI 0.82-0.92]) among all predictive methods in an internal validation. In the prospective validation cohort, our model was also superior (AUROC: 0.846 [95% CI 0.80-0.89]). The sensitivity and specificity in the prediction group is 89% and 75%, while in the validation group they are 90% and 70%. MV duration and respiratory rate were the most important features. Additionally, we developed a web-based tool to help clinicians use our model. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed and prospectively validated the CatBoost model, which can be used to identify patients who are at risk of NIV failure. Thus, those patients might benefit from early triage and more intensive monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03704324. Registered 1 September 2018, https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov .


Subject(s)
Machine Learning , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Airway Extubation , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen , Reproducibility of Results , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
7.
Ther Adv Respir Dis ; 16: 17534666221113663, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1950910

ABSTRACT

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


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 , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
8.
Respir Care ; 67(9): 1177-1189, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1924460

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been widely used in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19. However, the impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of HFNC versus NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF. METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched through February 10, 2022, for eligible studies comparing HFNC and NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF. Our primary outcome was intubation. The secondary outcomes were mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and PaO2 /FIO2 changes. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% CI were obtained using a random-effect model. Prediction intervals were calculated to indicate the variance in outcomes that would be expected if new studies were conducted in the future. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 3,606 subjects (1,880 received HFNC and 1,726 received NIV) were included. There were no differences in intubation (RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.85-1.20], P = .89) or LOS (MD 0.38 d [95% CI -0.61 to 1.37], P = .45) between groups, with consistent results on the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Mortality was lower in NIV (RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.66-0.98], P = .03). However, the prediction interval was 0.41-1.59, and subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no difference in mortality between groups. There was a greater improvement in PaO2 /FIO2 with NIV (MD 22.80 [95% CI 5.30-40.31], P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that despite the greater improvement in PaO2 /FIO2 with NIV, intubation rates and LOS were similar between HFNC and NIV. Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, the prediction interval included the null value, and there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of RCTs. Future large-scale RCTs are necessary to support our findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
9.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 6527, 2022 04 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1908264

ABSTRACT

The effectiveness of noninvasive respiratory support in severe COVID-19 patients is still controversial. We aimed to compare the outcome of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow oxygen administered via nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), initiated outside the intensive care unit (ICU) in 10 university hospitals in Catalonia, Spain. We recruited 367 consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years who were treated with HFNC (155, 42.2%), CPAP (133, 36.2%) or NIV (79, 21.5%). The main outcome was intubation or death at 28 days after respiratory support initiation. After adjusting for relevant covariates and taking patients treated with HFNC as reference, treatment with NIV showed a higher risk of intubation or death (hazard ratio 2.01; 95% confidence interval 1.32-3.08), while treatment with CPAP did not show differences (0.97; 0.63-1.50). In the context of the pandemic and outside the intensive care unit setting, noninvasive ventilation for the treatment of moderate to severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 resulted in higher mortality or intubation rate at 28 days than high-flow oxygen or CPAP. This finding may help physicians to choose the best noninvasive respiratory support treatment in these patients.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04668196.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
10.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ; 36(8 Pt A): 2278-2286, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1890307

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) emerged as an efficient tool for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. The factors influencing NPPV failure still are elusive. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationships between semiquantitative chest computed tomography (CT) scoring and NPPV failure and mortality in patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Nonintensive care setting. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 112 patients consecutively admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care including various degrees of respiratory support. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The semiquantitative CT score was calculated at hospital admission. Subgroups were identified according to the ventilation strategy used (oxygen delivered by Venturi mask n = 53; NPPV-responder n = 38; NPPV-failure n = 21). The study's primary endpoint was the use of NPPV. The secondary endpoints were NPPV failure and in-hospital death, respectively. CT score progressively increased among groups (six v nine v 14, p < 0.05 among all). CT score was an independent predictor of all study endpoints (primary endpoint: 1.25 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.1-1.4], p = 0.001; NPPV failure: 1.41 [95% CI 1.18-1.69], p < 0.001; in-hospital mortality: 1.21 [95% CI 1.07-1.38], p = 0.003). According to receiver operator characteristics curve analysis, CT score was the most accurate variable for prediction of NPPV failure (area under the curve 0.862 with p < 0.001; p < 0.05 v other variables). CONCLUSIONS: The authors reported the common and effective use of NPPV in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. In the authors' population, a semiquantitative chest CT analysis at hospital admission accurately identified those patients responding poorly to NPPV.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Tomography , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
14.
Eur J Intern Med ; 100: 110-118, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800087

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Hypoxia/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
15.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(3): 349-359, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1778317

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is beneficial in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its effectiveness in pneumonia-associated respiratory failure is still controversial. In the current meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate whether the use of NIV before intubation in pneumonia improves the mortality and intubation rates of respiratory failure as compared to no use of NIV in adults. METHODS: We searched three databases from inception to December 2019. We included studies, in which pneumonia patients were randomized initially into either NIV-treated or non-NIV-treated groups. Five full-text publications, including 121 patients, reported eligible data for statistical analysis. RESULTS: With NIV the overall hospital mortality rate seemed lower in patients with pneumonia-associated respiratory failure, but this was not significant [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-1.14; P = 0.085]. In the intensive care unit, the mortality was significantly lower when NIV was applied compared to no NIV treatment (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.07-0.75; P = 0.015). NIV also decreased mortality compared to no NIV in patient groups, which did not exclude patients with COPD (OR = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.08-0.74; P = 0.013). The need for intubation was significantly reduced in NIV-treated patients (OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.53; P = 0.001), which effect was more prominent in pneumonia patient groups not excluding patients with pre-existing COPD (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.46; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: NIV markedly decreases the death rate in the intensive care unit and reduces the need for intubation in patients with pneumonia-associated respiratory failure. The beneficial effects of NIV seem more pronounced in populations that include patients with COPD. Our findings suggest that NIV should be considered in the therapeutic guidelines of pneumonia, given that future clinical trials confirm the results of our meta-analysis. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS: All data and materials generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


Subject(s)
Noninvasive Ventilation , Pneumonia , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Pneumonia/complications , Pneumonia/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
16.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 26(6): 2165-2170, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1776795

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: There has been an increase in intensive care applications due to respiratory failure of COVID-19 infection. Management of respiratory failure includes a range of additional interventions, including high-flow nasal oxygen, noninvasive and invasive ventilation and prone position. These interventions contain risk factors for the development of ocular complications. This study aimed to elucidate the ocular pathologies that occurred in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who completed 24 hours in the intensive care unit were included in the study. Age, gender, duration of hospitalization before intensive care unit, comorbid diseases and APACHE 2 scores of COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care unit were recorded. SOFA scores, presence of sedation and muscle relaxant, oxygen therapy (conventional oxygen therapy, high flow nasal oxygen therapy, noninvasive ventilation, invasive ventilation) and presence of prone position were recorded. All patients were evaluated daily for ocular findings. Routine eye care protocol was applied to all patients. RESULTS: Seventy patients were followed for a total of 596 days in the intensive care unit. Pathological ocular findings were observed during hospitalization in 59 of the patients followed. The incidence of chemosis in patients who underwent IMV was significantly higher compared to other methods (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that despite our routine eye care protocols, invasive mechanical ventilation applications predispose corneal surface damage in patients followed up in the intensive care unit with COVID-19 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiration, Artificial/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Turkey/epidemiology
17.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 117(3): 177-186, 2022 Apr.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1763329

ABSTRACT

Treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is particularly challenging due to the rapid scientific advances and the often significant hypoxemia. Use of high-flow oxygen, noninvasive mask ventilation, and the technique of awake proning can sometimes avoid the need for intubation. Mechanical ventilation follows the principles of ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; lung protective ventilation) and is generally supplemented by consequent positioning therapy (with at least 16 h in prone position in multiple cycles). Antiviral therapy options such as remdesivir usually come too late for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, the only exception being the administration of monoclonal antibodies for patients without seroconversion. The value of immunomodulatory therapy such as dexamethasone is undisputed. Interleukin­6 antagonists, on the other hand, are rather problematic for ICU patients, and for Janus kinase inhibitors, data and experience are still insufficient in this context.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial
18.
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
19.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0265202, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753195

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been increasingly used in COVID-19 patients. The limited physiological monitoring and the unavailability of respiratory mechanic measures, usually obtainable during invasive ventilation, is a limitation of NIV for ARDS and COVID-19 patients management. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study was aimed to evaluate the feasibility of non-invasively monitoring respiratory mechanics by oscillometry in COVID-19 patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving NIV. METHOD: 15 COVID-19 patients affected by moderate-severe ARDS at the RICU (Respiratory Intensive Care Unit) of the University hospital of Cattinara, Trieste, Italy were recruited. Patients underwent oscillometry tests during short periods of spontaneous breathing between NIV sessions. RESULTS: Oscillometry proved to be feasible, reproducible and well-tolerated by patients. At admission, 8 of the 15 patients showed oscillometry parameters within the normal range which further slightly improved before discharge. At discharge, four patients had still abnormal respiratory mechanics, not exclusively linked to pre-existing respiratory comorbidities. Lung mechanics parameters were not correlated with oxygenation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that lung mechanics provide complementary information for improving patients phenotyping and personalisation of treatments during NIV in COVID 19 patients, especially in the presence of respiratory comorbidities where deterioration of lung mechanics may be less coupled with changes in oxygenation and more difficult to identify. Oscillometry may provide a valuable tool for monitoring lung mechanics in COVID 19 patients receiving NIV.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Lung/physiopathology , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oscillometry/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/physiopathology , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Mechanics , Retrospective Studies
20.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 55, 2022 03 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731538

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspired oxygen fraction (PaO2/FIO2) during invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is used as criteria to grade the severity of respiratory failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, the use of PaO2/FIO2 ratio has been increasingly used in non-invasive respiratory support such as high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The grading of hypoxemia in non-invasively ventilated patients is uncertain. The main hypothesis, investigated in this study, was that the PaO2/FIO2 ratio does not change when switching between MV, NIV and HFNC. METHODS: We investigated respiratory function in critically ill patients with COVID-19 included in a single-center prospective observational study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden. In a steady state condition, the PaO2/FIO2 ratio was recorded before and after any change between two of the studied respiratory support techniques (i.e., HFNC, NIV and MV). RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were included in the present analysis. We find that any change in respiratory support from or to HFNC caused a significant change in PaO2/FIO2 ratio. Changes in respiratory support between NIV and MV did not show consistent change in PaO2/FIO2 ratio. In patients classified as mild to moderate ARDS during MV, the change from HFNC to MV showed a variable increase in PaO2/FIO2 ratio ranging between 52 and 140 mmHg (median of 127 mmHg). This made prediction of ARDS severity during MV from the apparent ARDS grade during HFNC impossible. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC is associated with lower PaO2/FIO2 ratio than either NIV or MV in the same patient, while NIV and MV provided similar PaO2/FIO2 and thus ARDS grade by Berlin definition. The large variation of PaO2/FIO2 ratio indicates that great caution should be used when estimating ARDS grade as a measure of pulmonary damage during HFNC.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Critical Illness/therapy , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , RNA, Viral , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL