Continuous positive airway pressure in COVID-19-associated respiratory failure: improving patient care with a proforma.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes (COVID-19) has proven to be the greatest challenge to modern global health care, infecting more than 450 million people worldwide and responsible for just over 6 million deaths. Over the past 2 years there have been major advances in the treatment of COVID-19, including a significant reduction in the number of individuals developing severe symptoms, since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines and the advances in pharmacological treatments. However, for those individuals who become infected with COVID-19 and develop acute respiratory failure, the use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) continues to be an essential management strategy that reduces mortality risk and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Without any standard regional or national guidelines on CPAP initiation and up-titration during the pandemic, a protocol proforma was devised for use in the author's clinical area. This was particularly useful for staff caring for seriously ill COVID-19 patients who were unfamiliar with providing CPAP. It is hoped that this article will contribute to the knowledge base of nurses and may encourage them to create a similar proforma for use in their clinical area.

Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to hypoxemic respiratory failure resulting in prolonged mechanical ventilation. Typically, tracheostomy is considered in patients who remain ventilator dependent beyond 2 weeks. However, in the setting of this novel respiratory virus, the safety and benefits of tracheostomy are not well-defined. Our aim is to describe our experience with percutaneous tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single center retrospective descriptive study. We reviewed comorbidities and outcomes in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy at our institution from April 2020 to September 2020. In addition, we provide details of our attempt to minimize aerosolization by using a modified protocol with brief periods of planned apnea. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients underwent percutaneous tracheostomy during the study. The average body mass index was 33.0±10.0. At 30 days posttracheostomy 17 (71%) patients still had the tracheostomy tube and 14 (58%) remained ventilator dependent. There were 3 (13%) who died within 30 days. At the time of data analysis in November 2020, 9 (38%) patients had died and 7 (29%) had been decannulated. None of the providers who participated in the procedure experienced signs or symptoms of COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous tracheostomy in prolonged respiratory failure due to COVID-19 appears to be safe to perform at the bedside for both the patient and health care providers in the appropriate clinical context. Morbid obesity did not limit the ability to perform percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients.

Awake prone position in COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the effects of awake prone positioning (APP) in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched up to June 1, 2022. All randomized trials investigating the effects of APP were included in the present meta-analysis. The primary outcome was intubation rate, and the secondary outcomes included the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, and mortality. Prescribed subgroup analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 10 randomized trials enrolling 2324 patients were ultimately included in the present study. The results indicated that APP was associated with a significant reduction in the intubation rate (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93, P = 0.007). However, no differences could be observed in the length of ICU stay or hospitalization or mortality. Subgroup analysis suggested that patients in the ICU settings (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91, P = 0.004), patients whose median APP time was more than 4 h (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93, P = 0.008), and patients with an average baseline SpO2 to FiO2 ratio less than 200 (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92) were more likely to benefit from APP, indicated a significantly reduced intubation rate. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, nonintubated adult patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 infection who underwent APP were shown to have a significantly reduced intubation rate. However, no differences in ICU or hospital length of stay or mortality could be observed between APP and usual care. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022337846.

Prolonged non-invasive respiratory supports in a COVID-19 patient with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

A pandemic caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 was declared in 2020. Severe cases were characterized by the development of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) requiring advanced respiratory support. However, intensive care units (ICU) were saturated, and many patients had to be treated out of ICU. This case describes a 75-year-old man affected by AHRF due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), hospitalized in a high-dependency unit, with PaO2/FiO2 <100 for 28 consecutive days. An experienced team with respiratory physiotherapists was in charge of the noninvasive ventilatory support (NIVS). The patient required permanent NIVS with continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation, high flow nasal oxygen and body positioning. He was weaned from NIVS after 37 days and started exercise training afterwards. The patient was discharged at home with low-flow oxygen therapy. This case represents an example of a successful treatment of AHRF with the still controversial noninvasive respiratory support in one patient with COVID-19.

Ventilatory ratio and mechanical power in prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients versus respiratory failures of other etiologies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests differences in ventilation efficiency and respiratory mechanics between early COVID-19 pneumonia and classical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), as measured by established ventilatory indexes, such as the ventilatory ratio (VR; a surrogate of the pulmonary dead-space fraction) or mechanical power (MP; affected, e.g., by changes in lung-thorax compliance). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate VR and MP in the late stages of the disease when patients are ready to be liberated from the ventilator after recovering from COVID-19 pneumonia compared to respiratory failures of other etiologies. DESIGN: A retrospective observational cohort study of 249 prolonged mechanically ventilated, tracheotomized patients with and without COVID-19-related respiratory failure. METHODS: We analyzed each group's VR and MP distributions and trajectories [repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)] during weaning. Secondary outcomes included weaning failure rates between groups and the ability of VR and MP to predict weaning outcomes (using logistic regression models). RESULTS: The analysis compared 53 COVID-19 cases with a heterogeneous group of 196 non-COVID-19 subjects. VR and MP decreased across both groups during weaning. COVID-19 patients demonstrated higher values for both indexes throughout weaning: median VR 1.54 versus 1.27 (p < 0.01) and MP 26.0 versus 21.3 Joule/min (p < 0.01) at the start of weaning, and median VR 1.38 versus 1.24 (p < 0.01) and MP 24.2 versus 20.1 Joule/min (p < 0.01) at weaning completion. According to the multivariable analysis, VR was not independently associated with weaning outcomes, and the ability of MP to predict weaning failure or success varied with lung-thorax compliance, with COVID-19 patients demonstrating consistently higher dynamic compliance along with significantly fewer weaning failures (9% versus 30%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients differed considerably in ventilation efficiency and respiratory mechanics among prolonged ventilated individuals, demonstrating significantly higher VRs and MP. The differences in MP were linked with higher lung-thorax compliance in COVID-19 patients, possibly contributing to the lower rate of weaning failures observed.

Pneumothorax in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory failure: Risk factors and outcome.

PNX was described as an uncommon complication in COVID-19 patients but clinical risk predictors and the potential role in patient's outcome are still unclear. We assessed prevalence, risk predictors and mortality of PNX in hospitalized COVID- 19 with severe respiratory failure performing a retrospective observational analysis of 184 patients admitted to our COVID-19 Respiratory Unit in Vercelli from October 2020 to March 2021. We compared patients with and without PNX reporting prevalence, clinical and radiological features, comorbidities, and outcomes. Prevalence of PNX was 8.1% and mortality was >86% (13/15) significantly higher than in patients without PNX (56/169) (P < 0.001). PNX was more likely to occur in patients with a history of cognitive decline (HR: 31.18) who received non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (p < 0.0071) and with low P/F ratio (HR: 0.99, p = 0.004). Blood chemistry in the PNX subgroup compared to patients without PNX showed a significant increase in LDH (420 U/L vs 345 U/L, respectively p = 0.003), ferritin (1111 mg/dl vs 660 mg/dl, respectively p = 0.006) and decreased lymphocytes (HR: 4.440, p = 0.004). PNX may be associated with a worse prognosis in terms of mortality in COVID patients. Possible mechanisms may include the hyperinflammatory status associated with critical illness, the use of NIV, the severity of respiratory failure and cognitive impairment. We suggest, in selected patients showing low P/F ratio, cognitive impairment and metabolic cytokine storm, an early treatment of systemic inflammation in association with high-flow oxygen therapy as a safer alternative to NIV in order to avoid fatalities connected with PNX.

Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Had a Higher Chance of In-Hospital Death If Treated With High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Before Intubation.

BACKGROUND: The impact of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on outcomes of patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. We sought to assess whether exposure to HFNC before intubation was associated with successful extubation and in-hospital mortality compared to patients receiving intubation only. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study examined patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure from March 2020 to March 2021 who required HFNC, intubation, or both. Data were abstracted from the electronic health record. Use and duration of HFNC and intubation were examined' as well as demographics and clinical characteristics. We assessed the association between HFNC before intubation (versus without) and chance of successful extubation and in-hospital death using Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, prior chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, HCO 3 , CO 2 , oxygen-saturation-to-inspired-oxygen (S:F) ratio, pulse, respiratory rate, temperature, and length of stay before intervention. RESULTS: A total of n = 440 patients were identified, of whom 311 (70.7%) received HFNC before intubation, and 129 (29.3%) were intubated without prior use of HFNC. Patients who received HFNC before intubation had a higher chance of in-hospital death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-4.05). No difference was found in the chance of successful extubation between the 2 groups (0.70, 0.41-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with respiratory failure from COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation, patients receiving HFNC before intubation had a higher chance of in-hospital death. Decisions on initial respiratory support modality should weigh the risks of intubation with potential increased mortality associated with HFNC.

Reintubation in COVID-19 patients: a multicenter observational study in Japan (J-RECOVER study).

BACKGROUND: Reintubation is not an uncommon occurrence following extubation and discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. In COVID-19 patients, the proportion of reintubation may be higher than that of non-COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, COVID-19 patients may have a higher risk for developing laryngotracheal stenosis, along with a higher proportion of reintubation than in non-COVID-19 patients. Our understanding of the proportion of reintubation in COVID-19 patients is limited in Japan. Additionally, the reasons for reintubation have not been adequately examined in previous studies outside of Japan. Thus, the present study aimed to describe the proportion and causes of reintubation among COVID-19 patients in Japan. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational study that included 64 participating centers across Japan. This study included mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients who were discharged between April 1, 2020 and September 30, 2020. The outcomes examined were the proportion and causes of reintubation. RESULTS: A total of 373 patients were eligible for inclusion in the current analysis. The median age of patients was 64 years and 80.4% were male. Reintubation was required for 35 patients (9.4%) and the most common causes for reintubation were respiratory failure (71.4%; n = 25) and laryngotracheal stenosis (8.6%; n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of reintubation among COVID-19 patients in Japan was relatively low. Respiratory failure was the most common cause for reintubation. Reintubation due to laryngotracheal stenosis accounted for only a small fraction of all reintubated COVID-19 patients in Japan.

Long-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support: follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared to usual respiratory support reduces 180-day mortality and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This is a pre-planned follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID trial. In this multicenter, randomized clinical trial, adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of all enrolled patients except three who were lost at follow-up. The study outcomes were 180-day mortality, EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values, and EQ-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, non-survivors were assigned a value of 0 for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. RESULTS: Within 180 days, 63/159 patients (39.6%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared to 65/158 patients (41.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference - 1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.3, 9.3, p = 0.78). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the helmet noninvasive ventilation and the usual respiratory support groups did not differ in EQ-5D-5L index values (median 0.68 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], compared to 0.67 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], median difference 0.00 [95% CI - 0.32, 0.32; p = 0.91]) or EQ-VAS scores (median 70 [IQR 0, 93], compared to 70 [IQR 0, 90], median difference 0.00 (95% CI - 31.92, 31.92; p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive ventilation did not reduce 180-day mortality or improve HRQoL compared to usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

Mechanical Ventilation for COVID-19 Patients.

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is frequently needed in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. While NIV can be delivered in hospital wards and nonintensive care environments, intubated patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission and support. Thus, the lack of ICU beds generated by the pandemic has often forced the use of NIV in severely hypoxemic patients treated outside the ICU. In this context, awake prone positioning has been widely adopted to ameliorate oxygenation during noninvasive respiratory support. Still, the incidence of NIV failure and the role of patient self-induced lung injury on hospital outcomes of COVID-19 subjects need to be elucidated. On the other hand, endotracheal intubation is indicated when gas exchange deterioration, muscular exhaustion, and/or neurological impairment ensue. Yet, the best timing for intubation in COVID-19 is still widely debated, as it is the safest use of neuromuscular blocking agents. Not differently from other types of acute respiratory distress syndrome, the aim of MV during COVID-19 is to provide adequate gas exchange while avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury. At the same time, the use of rescue therapies is advocated when standard care is unable to guarantee sufficient organ support. Nevertheless, the general shortage of health care resources experienced during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic might affect the utilization of high-cost, highly specialized, and long-term supports. In this article, we describe the state-of-the-art of NIV and MV setting and their usage for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of COVID-19 patients.

Rox Index Dynamics According to High Flow Nasal Cannula Success in Intensive Care Unit Patients with COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Failure

Background: High-flow nasal cannula therapy has been shown to be useful in the treatment of patients with acute respiratory failure caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus disease-2. The ROX index can help predict the success of high-flow nasal cannula in coronavirus disease-19-related acute respiratory failure. However, the timing of ROX- index assessment is still unclear to protect the patients from complications due to early or delayed intubation. Aims: To evaluate the relation between ROX index patterns within the first 48 hours of the therapy and high-flow nasal cannula success rates. The secondary aim was to determine other possible predictors of high-flow nasal cannula failure. Study design: A cross-sectional study. Methods: Patients admitted to the intensive care unit between April 2020 and January 2022 with coronavirus disease-19-related acute respiratory failure and treated with high-flow nasal cannula were included in the study. Patients' demographics, clinical characteristics and laboratory findings at intensive care unit admission; ROX indices at initiation, 2nd, 8th, 12th, 24th and 48th hours of high-flow nasal cannula; and outcomes were recorded. Results: In the study period, 69th patients were managed with high-flow nasal cannula for at least 2 hours. While 24 patients (34.7%) were successfully weaned from high-flow nasal cannula, 45 (65.3%) patients failed. Overall mortality at day 28 was 44.9%. ROX indices were lower in the high-flow nasal cannula failure group through the 12th, 24th, and 48th hours of the therapy, no significant change was observed (P = 0.33). While an overall increase in ROX index patterns were detected in patients weaned from high-flow nasal cannula (P = 0.002). Pairwise analyses revealed that ROX indexes remain stable during the first 8th hours in both groups, then improved to 12th hours of the therapy in successfully high-flow nasal cannula-weaned patients. Conclusion: Dynamic assessments of the ROX indexes could be more suggestive rather than a point assessment to identify patients who would benefit from the high-flow nasal cannula or deteriorate in coronavirus disease-19 related acute respiratory failure.

COVID-19 in patients with myasthenia gravis.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly become a global pandemic, but little is known about its potential impact on patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: We studied the clinical course of COVID-19 in five hospitalized patients with autoimmune MG (four with acetylcholine receptor antibodies, one with muscle-specific tyrosine kinase antibodies) between April 1, 2020-April 30-2020. RESULTS: Two patients required intubation for hypoxemic respiratory failure, whereas one required significant supplemental oxygen. One patient with previously stable MG had myasthenic exacerbation. One patient treated with tocilizumab for COVID-19 was successfully extubated. Two patients were treated for MG with intravenous immunoglobulin without thromboembolic complications. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the clinical course and outcomes in patients with MG and COVID-19 are highly variable. Further large studies are needed to define best practices and determinants of outcomes in this unique population.

Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline.

This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Outcomes Among Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Severe Pneumonia and Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure From SARS-CoV-2 and Other Etiologies.

Importance: Early observations suggested that COVID-19 pneumonia had a higher mortality rate than other causes of pneumonia. Objective: To compare outcomes between mechanically ventilated patients with pneumonia due to COVID-19 (March 2020 to June 2021) and other etiologies (July 2016 to December 2019). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Johns Hopkins Healthcare System among adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pneumonia who required mechanical ventilation in the first 2 weeks of hospitalization. Clinical, laboratory, and mechanical ventilation data were extracted from admission to hospital discharge or death. Exposures: Pneumonia due to COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 90-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were time to liberation from mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, static respiratory system compliance, and ventilatory ratio. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression, proportional hazards regression, and doubly robust regression were used in propensity score-matched sets to compare clinical outcomes. Results: Overall, 719 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [15.3] years; 442 [61.5%] were male; 460 [64.0%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 253 [35.2%] were White) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and 1127 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [15.8] years; 586 [52.0%] were male; 459 [40.7%] belonged to a minoritized racial group and 655 [58.1%] were White) with severe non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In unadjusted analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.41), longer time on mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81), and lower compliance (32.0 vs 28.4 mL/kg PBW/cm H2O; P < .001) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In propensity score-matched analyses, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were equally likely to die within 90 days as those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.35; P = .85), had similar respiratory system compliance (mean difference, 1.82 mL/cm H2O; 95% CI, -1.53 to 5.17 mL/cm H2O; P = .28) and ventilatory ratio (mean difference, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.11; P = .52), but had lower rates of liberation from mechanical ventilation (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00) when compared with those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia had somewhat lower rates of being discharged from the hospital alive at 90 days (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.01) than those with non-COVID-19 pneumonia; however, this was not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia had similar mortality rates as patients with other causes of severe pneumonia but longer times to liberation from mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation use in COVID-19 pneumonia should follow the same evidence-based guidelines as for any pneumonia.