Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 141
Filter
1.
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
2.
Respir Investig ; 60(6): 779-786, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2031662

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Cannula , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Oxygen , Pulmonologists
3.
J Trop Pediatr ; 68(4)2022 06 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2018106

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , Coinfection , Influenza, Human , Respiratory Tract Infections , Cannula , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Influenza, Human/complications , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/therapy , Male , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/etiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/therapy , Retrospective Studies
4.
Respir Care ; 67(11): 1443-1451, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1988239

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cannula , Humans , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Oxygen
6.
N Engl J Med ; 386(17): 1627-1637, 2022 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1815679

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
Intubation, Intratracheal , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Australia , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Oxygen/analysis , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods
7.
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
8.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 108, 2022 04 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1793838

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Cross-Over Studies , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Pandemics , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
9.
Respir Care ; 67(4): 471-479, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1766057

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Patient Positioning/methods , Prone Position
10.
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
11.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 22(1): 62, 2022 03 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1728877

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
Masks , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen/metabolism , Adult , Cannula , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Healthy Volunteers , Humans , Male , Nasal Cavity , Reference Values
12.
JAMA ; 327(6): 546-558, 2022 02 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1711978

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Intubation, Intratracheal , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , Cannula , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology
14.
Respir Physiol Neurobiol ; 299: 103868, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1671098

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/standards , /physiology , Adult , Aged , Altitude , Bolivia , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods
15.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262547, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1643266

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Particulate Matter , Humans , Models, Theoretical
16.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 16, 2022 01 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613247

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency , Administration, Intranasal , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Prone Position , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Wakefulness
17.
JAMA ; 326(21): 2161-2171, 2021 Dec 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596653

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
18.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(4): 431-439, 2022 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551111

ABSTRACT

Rationale: The "Berlin definition" of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) does not allow inclusion of patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, several articles have proposed that criteria for defining ARDS should be broadened to allow inclusion of patients receiving HFNO. Objectives: To compare the proportion of patients fulfilling ARDS criteria during HFNO and soon after intubation, and 28-day mortality between patients treated exclusively with HFNO and patients transitioned from HFNO to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: From previously published studies, we analyzed patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who had PaO2/FiO2 of ⩽300 while treated with ⩾40 L/min HFNO, or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with positive end-expiratory pressure of ⩾5 cm H2O (comparator). In patients transitioned from HFNO/NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), we compared ARDS severity during HFNO/NIV and soon after IMV. We compared 28-day mortality in patients treated exclusively with HFNO/NIV versus patients transitioned to IMV. Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 184 and 131 patients receiving HFNO or NIV, respectively. A total of 112 HFNO and 69 NIV patients transitioned to IMV. Of those, 104 (92.9%) patients on HFNO and 66 (95.7%) on NIV continued to have PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 under IMV. Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on HFNO was 4.2% (3/72), whereas in patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV, it was 28.6% (32/112) (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on NIV was 1.6% (1/62), whereas in patients who transitioned from NIV to IMV, it was 44.9% (31/69) (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 19.0% (35/184) and 24.4% (32/131) for HFNO and NIV, respectively (P = 0.2479). Conclusions: Broadening the ARDS definition to include patients on HFNO with PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 may identify patients at earlier stages of disease but with lower mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hypoxia/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/diagnosis , Hypoxia/mortality , Hypoxia/virology , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/mortality , Patient Acuity , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL