Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
1.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed ; 106(6): 627-634, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503592

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors associated with delivery room respiratory support in at-risk infants who are initially vigorous and received delayed cord clamping (DCC). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two perinatal centres in Melbourne, Australia. PATIENTS: At-risk infants born at ≥35+0 weeks gestation with a paediatric doctor in attendance who were initially vigorous and received DCC for >60 s. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Delivery room respiratory support defined as facemask positive pressure ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure and/or supplemental oxygen within 10 min of birth. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-eight infants born at a median (IQR) gestational age of 39+3 (38+2-40+2) weeks were included. Cord clamping occurred at a median (IQR) of 128 (123-145) s. Forty-four (15%) infants received respiratory support at a median of 214 (IQR 156-326) s after birth. Neonatal unit admission for respiratory distress occurred in 32% of infants receiving delivery room respiratory support vs 1% of infants who did not receive delivery room respiratory support (p<0.001). Risk factors independently associated with delivery room respiratory support were average heart rate (HR) at 90-120 s after birth (determined using three-lead ECG), mode of birth and time to establish regular cries. Decision tree analysis identified that infants at highest risk had an average HR of <165 beats per minute at 90-120 s after birth following caesarean section (risk of 39%). Infants with an average HR of ≥165 beats per minute at 90-120 s after birth were at low risk (5%). CONCLUSIONS: We present a clinical decision pathway for at-risk infants who may benefit from close observation following DCC. Our findings provide a novel perspective of HR beyond the traditional threshold of 100 beats per minute.


Subject(s)
Critical Pathways/standards , Delivery, Obstetric , Electrocardiography/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Umbilical Cord , Australia/epidemiology , Cesarean Section/adverse effects , Cesarean Section/methods , Clinical Decision-Making , Constriction , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Delivery, Obstetric/adverse effects , Delivery, Obstetric/methods , Delivery, Obstetric/statistics & numerical data , Female , Gestational Age , Heart Rate , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , Time-to-Treatment/standards , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data
3.
Can Respir J ; 2021: 6638048, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1301736

ABSTRACT

Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has been recommended for use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory failure and many other clinical conditions. HFNC devices produced by different manufacturers may have varied performance. Whether there is a difference in these devices and the extent of the differences in performance remain unknown. Methods: Four HFNC devices (AIRVO 2, TNI softFlow 50, HUMID-BH, and OH-70C) and a ventilator with an HFNC module (bellavista 1000) were evaluated. The flow was set at 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, and 80 L/min, and the FiO2 was set at 21%, 26%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%. Then, one side of the cannulas was clipped to simulate the compression, bending, or blocking of the nasal cannulas. The flow and FiO2 of the delivered gas were recorded and compared among settings and devices. Results: The actual-flow and actual-FiO2 delivered by different settings and devices varied. AIRVO 2 had superior performance in flow and FiO2 accuracy. bellavista 1000 and OH-70C had good performance in the accuracy of actual-flows and actual-FiO2, respectively. bellavista 1000 and HUMID-BH had a larger flow range from 10 to 80 L/min, but only bellavista 1000 could provide a stable flow with an excessive resistance up to 60 L/min. TNI softFlow 50 had the best flow compensation and could provide sufficient flow with excessive resistance at 20-50 L/min. Conclusions: The variation in flow, FiO2 settings, and devices could influence the actual-flow and actual-FiO2 delivered. AIRVO 2 and OH-70C showed better FiO2 accuracy. TNI softFlow 50, bellavista 1000, and HUMID-BH could lower the risk of insufficient flow support due to accidental compression or blocking of the cannulas. In addition, ventilators with HFNC modules provided comparable flow and FiO2 and could be an alternative to standalone HFNC devices.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , COVID-19 , Cannula , Inhalation/physiology , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Analysis of Variance , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula/classification , Cannula/standards , Comparative Effectiveness Research , Humans , Materials Testing/methods , Maximal Respiratory Pressures , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Tidal Volume/physiology
4.
Aging (Albany NY) ; 13(12): 15801-15814, 2021 06 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1285614

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide and causes high mortality of elderly patients. High-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) is an oxygen delivery method for severely ill patients. We retrospectively analyzed the course of illness and outcomes in 110 elderly COVID-19 patients (≥65 years) treated with HFNC from 6 hospitals. 38 patients received HFNC (200 mmHg < PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 mmHg, early HFNC group), and 72 patients received HFNC (100 mmHg < PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg, late HFNC group). There were no significant differences of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores and APECH II scores between early and late HFNC group on admission. Compared with the late HFNC group, patients in the early HFNC group had a lower likelihood of developing severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), longer time from illness onset to severe ARDS and shorter duration of viral shedding after illness onset, as well as shorter lengths of ICU and hospital stay. 24 patients died during hospitalization, of whom 22 deaths (30.6%) were in the late HFNC group and 2 (5.3%) in the early HFNC group. The present study suggested that the outcomes were better in severely ill elderly patients with COVID-19 receiving early compared to late HFNC.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cannula , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , China , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Logistic Models , Male , Multivariate Analysis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Retrospective Studies
6.
Ther Adv Respir Dis ; 15: 17534666211019555, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247557

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDS: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an alternative therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed first to describe outcomes of patients suffering from COVID-19-related ARDS treated with HFNC; secondly to evaluate safety of HFNC (patients and healthcare workers) and compare patients according to respiratory outcome. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was conducted in French general hospital intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were included if receiving HFNC for hypoxemia (saturation pulse oxygen (SpO2) <92% under oxygen ⩾6 L/min) associated with ARDS and positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Main clinical characteristics and outcomes are described in patients: (a) with do not intubate order (HFNC-DNIO); (b) who did not need intubation (HFNC-only); and (c) eventually intubated (HFNC-intubation). Medians are presented with (1st-3rd) interquartile range. RESULTS: From 26 February to 30 June 2020, 46 patients of median age 75 (70-79) years were included. In the HFNC-DNIO group (n = 11), partial arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/inhaled fraction of oxygen (FiO2) ratio median worst PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 109 (102-172) and hospital mortality was 54.5%. Except the HFNC-DNIO patients (n = 35), 20 patients (57%) were eventually intubated (HFNC-intubation group) and 15 were only treated by HFNC (HFNC-only). HFNC-intubation patients presented higher worst respiratory rates per minute in ICU [37 (34-41) versus 33 (24-34) min, p < 0.05] and worsened ICU admission PaO2/FiO2 ratios [121 (103-169) versus 191 (162-219), p < 0.001] compared with HFNC-only patients. Hospital mortality was 35% (n = 7/20) in HFNC-intubation group, 0% in HFNC-only group with a global mortality of these two groups of 20% (n = 7/35). Among tests performed in healthcare workers, 1/12 PCR in symptomatic healthcare workers and 1.8% serologies in asymptomatic healthcare workers were positive. After review of each case, COVID-19 was likely to be acquired outside hospital. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC seems to be useful for COVID-19-related ARDS and safe for healthcare workers. ARDS severity with PaO2/FiO2 <150 associated with respiratory rate >35/min could be regarded as a predictor of intubation.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cannula , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Female , France , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Retrospective Studies
7.
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
8.
Recenti Prog Med ; 112(5): 378-386, 2021 05.
Article in Italian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1232491

ABSTRACT

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are an oxygen therapy device developed in the last years for the treatment of patients with acute or acute on chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure with different etiology and severity (including covid-19 pneumonia). HFNC combine the possibility of delivering high flows of gases, actively humidified and heated, with the use of a comfortable nasal interface, resulting generally well tolerated by most patients. In light of these characteristics, together with the simplicity of use and versatility, they have spread not only in intensive and semi-intensive care units but also in general medical ward in which they can play an important role in the treatment of elderly, frail patients with comorbidity where other more aggressive and invasive methods of ventilations are not indicated or not practicable.


Subject(s)
Cannula , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Acidosis, Respiratory/complications , Acidosis, Respiratory/therapy , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Equipment Design , Heart Failure/complications , Heart Failure/therapy , Humans , Hypoxia/complications , Hypoxia/therapy , Internal Medicine , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Palliative Care , Pulmonary Edema/complications , Pulmonary Edema/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/complications
9.
Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 43(7): 389-407, 2020.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230494

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the suspension of programmed activity in most of the Endoscopy Units in our environment. The aim of this document is to facilitate the resumption of elective endoscopic activity in an efficient and safe manner. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A series of questions considered to be of clinical and logistical relevance were formulated. In order to elaborate the answers, a structured bibliographic search was carried out in the main databases and the recommendations of the main Public Health and Digestive Endoscopy institutions were reviewed. The final recommendations were agreed upon through telematic means. RESULTS: A total of 33 recommendations were made. The main aspects discussed are: 1) Reassessment and prioritization of the indication, 2) Restructuring of spaces, schedules and health personnel, 3) Screening for infection, 4) Hygiene measures and personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: The AEG and SEED recommend restarting endoscopic activity in a phased, safe manner, adapted to local resources and the epidemiological situation of SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Aftercare , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disinfection , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/adverse effects , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/instrumentation , Equipment Contamination , Humans , Hygiene , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Medical Waste Disposal/methods , Medical Waste Disposal/standards , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Patient Isolation , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Risk , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
10.
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
11.
Respir Med ; 179: 106312, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081264

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Efforts to meet increased oxygen demands in COVID-19 patients are a priority in averting mechanical ventilation (MV), associated with high mortality approaching 76.4-97.2%. Novel methods of oxygen delivery could mitigate that risk. Oxygen hoods/helmets may improve: O2-saturation (SaO2), reduce in-hospital mechanical ventilation and mortality rates, and reduce length of hospitalization in hypoxic Covid-19 patients failing on conventional high-flow oxygen delivery systems. METHODS: DesignProspective Controlled Cohort Study. SettingSingle Center. ParticipantsAll patients admitted with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were reviewed and 136/347 patients met inclusion criteria. Study period3/6/2020 to 5/1/2020. 136 participants completed the study with known status for all outcome measures. Intervention or exposureOxygen hoods/helmets as compared to conventional high-flow oxygen delivery systems. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): 1) Pre and post change in oxygen saturation (SaO2). 2) In-hospital Mechanical Ventilation (MV). 3) In-hospital Mortality. 4) Length of hospitalization. RESULTS: 136 patients including 58-intervention and 78-control patients were studied. Age, gender, and other demographics/prognostic indicators were comparable between cohorts. Oxygen hoods averted imminent or immediate intubation/MV in all 58 COVID-19 patients failing on conventional high-flow oxygen delivery systems with a mean improvement in SaO2 of 8.8%, p < 0.001. MV rates were observed to be higher in the control 37/78 (47.4%) as compared to the intervention cohort 23/58 (39.7%), a difference of 7.7%, a 27% risk reduction, not statistically significant, OR 95%CI 0.73 (0.37-1.5). Mortality rates were observed higher in the control 54/78 (69.2%) as compared to the intervention cohort 36/58 (62.1%), a difference of 7.1%, a 27% risk reduction, not statistically significant OR 95%CI 0.73 (0.36-1.5). CONCLUSION: Oxygen hoods demonstrate improvement in SaO2 for patients failing on conventional high-flow oxygen-delivery systems and prevented imminent mechanical ventilation. In-hospital mechanical ventilation and mortality rates were reduced with the use of oxygen hoods but not found to be statistically significant. The oxygen hood is a safe, effective oxygen-delivery system which may reduce intubation/MV and mortality rates. Their use should be considered in treating hypoxic COVID-19 patients. Further research is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04407260.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Hypoxia/therapy , Oxygen Consumption/physiology , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Equipment Failure , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , Survival Rate/trends , Treatment Failure , United States/epidemiology
12.
Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med ; 12(1): e1-e3, 2020 Jul 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1073600

ABSTRACT

The treatment of severely ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has brought the worldwide shortage of oxygen and ventilator-related resources to public attention. Ventilators are considered as the vital equipment needed to manage these patients, who account for 3% - 5% of patients with Covid-19. Most patients need oxygen and supportive therapy. In Africa, the shortage of oxygen is even more severe and needs equipment that is simpler to use than a ventilator. Different models of generating oxygen locally at hospitals, including at provincial and district levels, are required. In some countries, hospitals have established small oxygen production plants to supply themselves and neighbouring hospitals. Oxygen concentrators have also been explored but require dependable power supply and are influenced by local factors such as ambient temperature and humidity. By attaching a reservoir tank, the effect of short power outages or high demands can be smoothed over. The local and regional energy unleashed in the citizens to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic should now be directed towards developing appropriate infrastructure for oxygen and critical care. This infrastructure is education and technology intensive, requiring investment in these areas.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Africa/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Severity of Illness Index , Ventilators, Mechanical
14.
Pulmonology ; 27(5): 413-422, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1057245

ABSTRACT

Helmet CPAP (H-CPAP) has been recommended in many guidelines as a noninvasive respiratory support during COVID-19 pandemic in many countries around the world. It has the least amount of particle dispersion and air contamination among all noninvasive devices and may mitigate the ICU bed shortage during a COVID surge as well as a decreased need for intubation/mechanical ventilation. It can be attached to many oxygen delivery sources. The MaxVenturi setup is preferred as it allows for natural humidification, low noise burden, and easy transition to HFNC during breaks and it is the recommended transport set-up. The patients can safely be proned with the helmet. It can also be used to wean the patients from invasive mechanical ventilation. Our article reviews in depth the pathophysiology of COVID-19 ARDS, provides rationale of using H-CPAP, suggests a respiratory failure algorithm, guides through its setup and discusses the issues and concerns around using it.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/instrumentation , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Ventilator Weaning/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/transmission , Head Protective Devices , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/nursing , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
15.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 89(3): e59-e63, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1007362

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Management of critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation in austere environments or during disaster response is a logistic challenge. Availability of oxygen cylinders for mechanically ventilated patient may be difficult in such a context. A solution to ventilate patients requiring high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) is to use a ventilator able to be supplied by a low-pressure oxygen source connected with two oxygen concentrators (OCs). We tested the Elisée 350 (ResMedBella Vista, Australia) ventilator paired with two Newlife Intensity 10 (Airsep, Ball Ground, Georgia) OCs and evaluated the delivered FiO2 across a range of minute volumes and combinations of ventilator settings. METHODS: The ventilators were attached to a test lung, OC flow was adjusted with a Certifier FA ventilator test systems from 2 to 10 L/min and injected into the oxygen inlet port of the Elisée 350. The FiO2 was measured by the analyzer integrated in the ventilator, controlled by the ventilator test system. Several combinations of ventilator settings were evaluated to determine the factors affecting the delivered FiO2. RESULTS: The Elisée 350 ventilator is a turbine ventilator able to deliver high FiO2 when functioning with two OCs. However, modifications of the ventilator settings such as an increase in minute ventilation affect delivered FiO2 even if oxygen flow is constant on the OC. CONCLUSION: The ability of two OCs to deliver high FiO2 when used with a turbine ventilator makes this method of oxygen delivery a viable alternative to cylinders to ventilate patients requiring an FiO2 of ≥80% in austere place or during disaster response. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Feasibility study on test bench, level V.


Subject(s)
Military Medicine/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Equipment Design , France , Humans
17.
Ther Adv Respir Dis ; 14: 1753466620963016, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-873869

ABSTRACT

The worldwide spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. According to clinical studies carried out in China and Italy, most patients experience mild or moderate symptoms; about a fifth of subjects develop a severe and critical disease, and may suffer from interstitial pneumonia, possibly associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and death.In patients who develop respiratory failure, timely conventional oxygen therapy through nasal catheter plays a crucial role, but it can be used only in mild forms. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) support or non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) are uncomfortable, and require significant man-machine cooperation. Herein we describe our experience of five patients with COVID-19, who were treated with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) after failure of CPAP or NIV, and discuss the role of HFNC in COVID-19 patients. Our findings suggest that HFNC can be used successfully in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Cannula , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
18.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 18(4): 623-631, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-858614

ABSTRACT

Rationale: How to provide advanced respiratory support for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) to maximize population-level survival while optimizing mechanical ventilator access is unknown.Objectives: To evaluate the use of high-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 on population-level mortality and ventilator availability.Methods: We constructed dynamical (deterministic) simulation models of high-flow nasal cannula and mechanical ventilation use for COVID-19 in the United States. Model parameters were estimated through consensus based on published literature, local data, and experience. We had the following two outcomes: 1) cumulative number of deaths and 2) days without any available ventilators. We assessed the impact of various policies for the use of high-flow nasal cannula (with or without "early intubation") versus a scenario in which high-flow nasal cannula was unavailable.Results: The policy associated with the fewest deaths and the least time without available ventilators combined the use of high-flow nasal cannula for patients not urgently needing ventilators with the use of early mechanical ventilation for these patients when at least 10% of ventilator supply was not in use. At the national level, this strategy resulted in 10,000-40,000 fewer deaths than if high-flow nasal cannula were not available. In addition, with moderate national ventilator capacity (30,000-45,000 ventilators), this strategy led to up to 25 (11.8%) fewer days without available ventilators. For a 250-bed hospital with 100 mechanical ventilators, the availability of 13, 20, or 33 high-flow nasal cannulas prevented 81, 102, and 130 deaths, respectively.Conclusions: The use of high-flow nasal cannula coupled with early mechanical ventilation when supply is sufficient results in fewer deaths and greater ventilator availability.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Computer Simulation , Critical Care , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Procedures and Techniques Utilization , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Survival Rate , Treatment Outcome , United States , Ventilators, Mechanical , Young Adult
20.
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue ; 32(7): 864-868, 2020 Jul.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-713519

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To make a new simple respirator and observe the oxygen therapy effect of the respirator on patients with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Based on the infectivity and hospital requirements of COVID-19, a new simple respirator was designed by the medical staff of the Department of Anesthesiology of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, which was applied on the 22 patients with severe and critical COVID-19 who needed oxygen therapy admitted to the Cancer Center of Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology from February 15th to March 15th in 2020. The new simple respirator contained two National Utility Model Patents (a respirator: ZL 2015 2 0410623.6, a fluid switch and oxygen suction device: ZL 2017 2 0873509.6), which was mainly composed of anesthesia mask and filter, L-shaped connecting tube, soft breathing bladder, connecting tube and elastic fixing belt. When in use, the anesthesia mask was fixed to the patient's mouth and nose with elastic straps, the connecting tube was inserted into the oxygen meter interface, the oxygen flow was adjusted to 6-10 L/min, and the L-shaped connecting tube was opened immediately after the soft breathing bag was full. The carbon dioxide and excess oxygen in the body was discharged from exhaust port. The oxygen flow was lowered to 2-3 L/min, the patient's respiratory rate (RR) was observed through the soft breathing bag fluctuations, and the oxygen flow was adjusted at any time. The changes of pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), RR and heart rate (HR) before and after application of new simple respirator were observed, and the blood gas test results of part of the patients were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with severe and critical COVID-19 had significantly higher SpO2 at 10 minutes after application of the new simple ventilator than before application (0.994±0.007 vs. 0.952±0.017, P < 0.01), and RR was significantly lower than that before application (times/min: 27.59±3.63 vs. 29.64±3.81, P < 0.01); after 1 day of application, each index was further improved. All 13 patients who received blood gas analysis indicated no carbon dioxide accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: The new simple respirator can significantly improve the oxygen therapy effect of patients with severe and critical COVID-19. At the same time, 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) can be filtered through the filter to reduce the formation of aerosol and protect the medical staff and patients.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , COVID-19 , Critical Care , Humans , Pandemics , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...