State of implementation of the Corona-Virus-Disease-2019 resuscitation guidelines : An online-based survey one year after publication in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated the implementation of the European Resuscitation Council Corona-Virus-Disease 2019 (COVID-19) resuscitation guidelines in Germany 1 year after publication. AIM OF THE WORK: To evaluate the practical implementation of the COVID-19 resuscitation guidelines in Germany one year after their publication. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In an online survey between April and May 2021 participants were asked about awareness of COVID-19 resuscitation guidelines, corresponding training, the resuscitation algorithm used and COVID-19 infections of emergency medicine personnel associated with COVID-19 resuscitation. RESULTS: A total of 961 (8%) of the 11,000 members took part in the survey and 85% (818/961) of questionnaires were fully completed. While 577 (70%) of the respondents were aware of the COVID-19 guidelines, only 103 (13%) had received respective training. A specific COVID-19 resuscitation algorithm was used by 265 respondents (32%). Adaptations included personal protective equipment (99%), reduction of staff caring for the patient, or routine use of video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation (each 37%), securing the airway before rhythm analysis (32%), and pausing chest compressions during endotracheal intubation (30%). Respondents without a specific COVID-19 resuscitation algorithm were more likely to use mouth-nose protection (47% vs. 31%; p < 0.001), extraglottic airway devices (66% vs. 55%; p = 0.004) and have more than 4 team members close to the patient (45% vs. 38%; p = 0.04). Use of an Filtering-Face-Piece(FFP)-2 or FFP3 mask (89% vs. 77%; p < 0.001; 58% vs. 70%; p ≤ 0.001) or performing primary endotracheal intubation (17% vs. 31%; p < 0.001) were found less frequently and 9% reported that a team member was infected with COVID-19 during resuscitation. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 resuscitation guidelines are still insufficiently implemented 1 year after publication. Future publication strategies must ensure that respective guideline adaptations are implemented in a timely manner.

The nursing care for the medical device related pressure injury patient with a mucosal pressure injury due to an endotracheal tube: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Pressure injury (PI) due to medical devices is one of the most common PIs, especially in patients treated in intensive care. Medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs), as part of their treatment, require extra care and prevention interventions than injuries caused by immobilization. Standardized nursing models are needed to care for PIs caused by medical devices on mucous membranes. PURPOSE: To provide information about the evaluation and care of the MDRPIs in the mucosal membrane due to the endotracheal tube (ET). CASE REPORT: A 35-year-old male with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and coronavirus disease has MDRPIs on the lower lip edge due to the ET on the fifteenth day after intubation. North American Nursing Diagnosis Association (NANDA) diagnoses were determined by systematically analyzing the data using the Gordon's Functional Health Patterns (GFHP) model in the patient. Nursing care was planned and applied in line with the determined NANDA diagnoses, Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) interventions, and using the recommendations of current PI guides for treatment of MDRPIs. CONCLUSION: This case report illustrates MDRPIs resulting from ET and provides information about the formation of MDRPIs and appropriate maintenance therapy. Future research is recommended to examine and evaluate the nursing care and outcome of MDRPIs in different mucosal membranes.

Airway management during cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite improvements over time, cardiac arrest continues to be associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. Several methods can be used to achieve airway patency during cardiac arrest, and the optimal strategy continues to be debated. This review will explore and summarize the latest published evidence for airway management during cardiac arrest. RECENT FINDINGS: A large meta-analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients found no difference in survival between those receiving tracheal intubation and those treated with a supraglottic airway (SGA). Observational studies of registry data have reported higher survival to hospital discharge in patients receiving tracheal intubation or an SGA but another showed no difference. Rates of intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest have decreased in the United States, and different airway strategies appear to be used in different centres. SUMMARY: Observational studies continue to dominate the evidence base relating to cardiac arrest airway management. Cardiac arrest registries enable these observational studies to include many patients; however, the design of such studies introduces considerable bias. Further randomized clinical trials are underway. The current evidence does not indicate a substantial improvement in outcome from any single airway strategy.

Impact of COVID-19-adapted guidelines using different airway management strategies on resuscitation quality in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest - a randomised manikin study.

BACKGROUND: Although airway management for paramedics has moved away from endotracheal intubation towards extraglottic airway devices in recent years, in the context of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation has seen a revival. Endotracheal intubation has been recommended again under the assumption that it provides better protection against aerosol liberation and infection risk for care providers than extraglottic airway devices accepting an increase in no-flow time and possibly worsen patient outcomes. METHODS: In this manikin study paramedics performed advanced cardiac life support with non-shockable (Non-VF) and shockable rhythms (VF) in four settings: ERC guidelines 2021 (control), COVID-19-guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation (COVID-19-intubation), laryngeal mask (COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask) or a modified laryngeal mask modified with a shower cap (COVID-19-showercap) to reduce aerosol liberation simulated by a fog machine. Primary endpoint was no-flow-time, secondary endpoints included data on airway management as well as the participants' subjective assessment of aerosol release using a Likert-scale (0 = no release-10 = maximum release) were collected and statistically compared. Continuous Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Interval-scaled Data were presented as median and Q1 and Q3. RESULTS: A total of 120 resuscitation scenarios were completed. Compared to control (Non-VF:11 ± 3 s, VF:12 ± 3 s) application of COVID-19-adapted guidelines lead to prolonged no-flow times in all groups (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:17 ± 11 s, VF:19 ± 5 s;p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: VF:15 ± 5 s,p ≤ 0.01; COVID-19-showercap: VF:15 ± 3 s,p ≤ 0.01). Compared to COVID-19-Intubation, the use of the laryngeal mask and its modification with a showercap both led to a reduction of no-flow-time(COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: Non-VF:p = 0.002;VF:p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-Showercap: Non-VF:p ≤ 0.001;VF:p = 0.002) due to a reduced duration of intubation (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:40 ± 19 s;VF:33 ± 17 s; both p ≤ 0.01 vs. control, COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask (Non-VF:15 ± 7 s;VF:13 ± 5 s;p > 0.05) and COVID-19-Shower-cap (Non-VF:15 ± 5 s;VF:17 ± 5 s;p > 0.05). The participants rated aerosol liberation lowest in COVID-19-intubation (median:0;Q1:0,Q3:2;p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask and COVID-19-showercap) compared to COVID-19-shower-cap (median:3;Q1:1,Q3:3 p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask) or COVID-19-laryngeal-mask (median:9;Q1:6,Q3:8). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-adapted guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation lead to a prolongation of no-flow time. The use of a modified laryngeal mask with a shower cap seems to be a suitable compromise combining minimal impact on no-flowtime and reduced aerosol exposure for the involved providers.

Safety and efficacy of video DLT (VDLT) for lung isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

One lung ventilation (OLV) with collapse of the ipsilateral lung is a prerequisite for most thoracic surgical procedures. Double-lumen tube (DLT) is still the preferred method to isolate the lungs and fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) is the gold standard for the confirmation of correct placement of the DLT. However, both these procedures are considered as a high-aerosol-generating procedures and are hazardous to the health workers, particularly at this time of the COVID-19 pandemic. We did nine thoracic surgery cases categorized as essential, requiring OLV during the ongoing period of the COVID-19 between April 2020 and May 2020 where we used Full view DLT for lung isolation. We present our case series which shows that the Full view VDLT can minimize or circumvent the use of FOB during OLV, and reduce the time taken to isolate the lungs thus reducing aerosol in the theater. None of the nine patients required FOB for confirmation of initial positioning nor for diagnosis of intraoperative malposition. The time taken to isolate the lungs was significantly less and the surgical positioning was done under real-time monitoring by visualizing the blue cuff distal to carina at all times. The real-time monitoring by the Full view VDLT offers the additional advantage of detecting any malposition even before it results in loss of isolation or desaturation. We conclude that the Full view VDLT is an efficient and safe alternative for lung isolation at this time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Timing of intubation and ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective analysis of 4198 critically ill patients during the first and second waves.

BACKGROUND: The optimal time to intubate patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia has not been adequately determined. While the use of non-invasive respiratory support before invasive mechanical ventilation might cause patient-self-induced lung injury and worsen the prognosis, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is frequently used to avoid intubation of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). We hypothesized that delayed intubation is associated with a high risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from adult patients with ARF due to COVID-19 admitted to 73 intensive care units (ICUs) between February 2020 and March 2021. Intubation was classified according to the timing of intubation. To assess the relationship between early versus late intubation and mortality, we excluded patients with ICU length of stay (LOS) < 7 days to avoid the immortal time bias and we did a propensity score and a cox regression analysis. RESULTS: We included 4,198 patients [median age, 63 (54‒71) years; 71% male; median SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score, 4 (3‒7); median APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) score, 13 (10‒18)], and median PaO2/FiO2 (arterial oxygen pressure/ inspired oxygen fraction), 131 (100‒190)]; intubation was considered very early in 2024 (48%) patients, early in 928 (22%), and late in 441 (10%). ICU mortality was 30% and median ICU stay was 14 (7‒28) days. Mortality was higher in the "late group" than in the "early group" (37 vs. 32%, p < 0.05). The implementation of an early intubation approach was found to be an independent protective risk factor for mortality (HR 0.6; 95%CI 0.5‒0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Early intubation within the first 24 h of ICU admission in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was found to be an independent protective risk factor of mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at Clinical-Trials.gov (NCT04948242) (01/07/2021).

A new non-invasive index for the prediction of endotracheal intubation in patients with SARS COVID-19 infection, in the emergency department, pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In the current context of the SARS COVID-19 pandemic, where the main cause of death is respiratory failure, and since early recognition would allow timely measures to be implemented and probably improve outcomes, it is important to have tools that allow the emergency room to predict quickly and without the use of large resources which will need invasive mechanical ventilation. This study proposes using a new predictive index of noninvasive characteristics, based on the relationship between oxygenation and work of breathing measured by ultrasound-assessed diaphragmatic function, for the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with SARS-COV2 infection who are admitted to the emergency department. METHODS: A prospective predictive cohort study was performed, collecting all patients admitted to the emergency room with respiratory failure (not severe or in imminent respiratory arrest) and a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Diaphragmatic excursion measurements were taken within the first 24 h after admission to the department. The relationship between diaphragmatic excursion and SAFI was calculated, establishing the ultrasound diaphragmatic excursion So2/FiO2 index (U.D.E.S.I). The index's performance was determined by analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: This pilot study analyzed the first 100 patients enrolled and found in-hospital mortality of 19%, all patients who died required mechanical ventilation, the right index showed a specificity of 82.4% with a sensitivity of 76.9%, likewise for the left index an overall specificity of 90.5% with a sensitivity of 65.3% was found. The ideal cut-off point for the right index is 1.485, and for the left index, the threshold point was 1.856. AUC of the right index is 0.798 (0.676-0.920) and of the left index 0.793 (0.674-0.911), when comparing them no significant differences were found between these values p = 0.871. CONCLUSION: The relationship of So2/FiO2 and diaphragm excursion measured by both right and left ultrasound could predict the need for mechanical ventilation of the patient with COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency room and could constitute a valuable tool since it uses noninvasive parameters and is easily applicable at the patient's bedside. However, a more extensive study is needed to validate these preliminary results.

Tracheal tube cuff pressure during anesthesia for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and the efficacy of an automatic cuff pressure controller (SmartCuff): observational studies of 1-sample paired data.

PURPOSE: The cuff pressure of a tracheal tube may increase during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for prostatectomy (RALP), which requires pneumoperitoneum in a steep head-down position, but there have been no studies which confirmed this. METHODS: In study 1, we studied how frequently the cuff pressure significantly increased during anesthesia for the RALP. In study 2, we studied if the SmartCuff (Smiths Medical Japan, Tokyo) automatic cuff pressure controller would minimize the changes in the intracuff pressure. With approval of the study by the research ethics committee (approved number: 20115), we measured the cuff pressures in anesthetized patients undergoing RALP and in those undergoing gynecological laparotomy (as a reference cohort), with and without the use of the SmartCuff. RESULTS: In 21 patients undergoing RALP, a clinically meaningful increase (5 cmH2O or greater) was observed in all the 21 patients (P = 0.00; 95% CI for difference: 86-100%), whereas in 23 patients undergoing gynecological laparotomy, a clinically meaningful decrease (5 cmH2O or greater) was observed in 21 of 23 patients (91%, P < 0.0001; 95% CI for difference: 72-99%). With the use of the SmartCuff, there was no significant increase in the incidence of a clinically meaningful change in the intracuff pressure in either cohort. CONCLUSION: The cuff pressure of a tracheal tube would frequently increase markedly in patients undergoing RALP, whereas it would frequently decrease markedly in patients undergoing gynecological laparotomy. The SmartCuff may inhibit the changes in the cuff pressure during anesthesia.

Comparison of Intubation Conditions Between Airtraq, McGrath Video Laryngoscopes, and Macintosh Under Conditions of Simulated Trauma Airway and Rapid Sequence Induction Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Patients arriving at the emergency department with a potential cervical spine injury and immobilized in a rigid cervical collar often require emergency airway management and rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII). There have been several advances in airway management with the advent of channeled (AirtraqⓇ; Prodol Meditec) and nonchanneled (McGrathⓇ; Meditronics) video laryngoscopes, which enable intubation without the removal of the cervical collar, but their efficacy and superiority over conventional laryngoscopy (Macintosh) in the presence of a rigid cervical collar and cricoid pressure have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the channeled (Airtraq [group A]) and nonchanneled (McGrath [Group M]) video laryngoscopes with a conventional laryngoscope (Macintosh [Group C]) in a simulated trauma airway. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in a tertiary care center. Participants were 300 patients requiring general anesthesia (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II), of both sexes, and aged 18-60 years. Airway management was simulated without removal of a rigid cervical collar and using cricoid pressure during intubation. After RSI, patients were intubated with one of the study techniques according to randomization. Intubation time and intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score were noted. RESULTS: Mean intubation time was 42.2 s in group C, 35.7 s in group M, and 21.8 s in group A (p = 0.001). Intubation was easy in group M and group A (median IDS score of 0; interquartile range [IQR] 0-1 for group M and median IDS score of 1; IQR 0-2 for group A and group C; p < 0.001). A higher proportion (95.1%) of patients had an IDS score of < 1 in group A. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of RSII with cricoid pressure in the presence of a cervical collar was easier and more rapid with channeled video laryngoscope than with other techniques.

Providing Oxygen during Intubation in the NICU Trial (POINT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial in the neonatal intensive care unit in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Nearly half of neonatal intubations are complicated by severe desaturation (≥20% decline in pulse oximetry saturation (SpO2)). Apnoeic oxygenation prevents or delays desaturation during intubation in adults and older children. Emerging data show mixed results for apnoeic oxygenation using high-flow nasal cannula (NC) during neonatal intubation. The study objective is to determine among infants ≥28 weeks' corrected gestational age (cGA) who undergo intubation in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) whether apnoeic oxygenation with a regular low-flow NC, compared with standard of care (no additional respiratory support), reduces the magnitude of SpO2 decline during intubation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, prospective, unblinded, pilot randomised controlled trial in infants ≥28 weeks' cGA who undergo premedicated (including paralytic) intubation in the NICU. The trial will recruit 120 infants, 10 in the run-in phase and 110 in the randomisation phase, at two tertiary care hospitals. Parental consent will be obtained for eligible patients prior to intubation. Patients will be randomised to 6 L NC 100% oxygen versus standard of care (no respiratory support) at time of intubation. The primary outcome is magnitude of oxygen desaturation during intubation. Secondary outcomes include additional efficacy, safety and feasibility outcomes. Ascertainment of the primary outcome is performed blinded to intervention arm. Intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted to compare outcomes between treatment arms. Two planned subgroup analyses will explore the influence of first provider intubation competence and patients' baseline lung disease using pre-intubation respiratory support as a proxy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Boards at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania have approved the study. Upon completion of the trial, we intend to submit our primary results to a peer review forum after which we plan to publish our results in a peer-reviewed paediatric journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05451953).

Aerosol Box Use in Reducing Health Care Worker Contamination During Airway Procedures (AIRWAY Study): A Simulation-Based Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The aerosol box has been used during the management of patients with COVID-19 to reduce health care practitioner (HCP) exposure during aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs). Little is known about the effect of aerosol box use on HCP contamination and AGMP procedure time. Objective: To investigate whether use of an aerosol box during AGMPs reduces HCP contamination or influences the time to successful completion and first-pass success rate for endotracheal intubation (ETI) and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, simulation-based, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May to December 2021 at tertiary care pediatric hospitals. Participant teams performed 3 simulated patient scenarios: bag-valve-mask ventilation, ETI, and LMA insertion. During the scenarios, aerosols were generated using Glo Germ. Teams of 2 HCPs were randomly assigned to control (no aerosol box) or intervention groups (aerosol box). Statistical analysis was performed from July 2022 to February 2023. Interventions: The aerosol box (or SplashGuard CG) is a transparent, plastic barrier covering the patient's head and shoulders with access ports allowing HCPs to manage the airway. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was surface area of contamination (AOC) on participants. Secondary outcomes were time to successful completion and first-pass success rates for ETI and LMA insertion. Results: A total of 64 teams (128 participants) were enrolled, with data from 61 teams (122 participants) analyzed. Among the 122 participants analyzed, 79 (64.8%) were female and 85 (69.7%) were physicians. Use of an aerosol box was associated with a 77.5% overall decreased AOC to the torso (95% CI, -86.3% to -62.9%; P < .001) and a 60.7% overall decreased AOC to the facial area (95% CI, -75.2% to -37.8%; P < .001) in airway HCPs. There was no statistically significant difference in surface contamination after doffing personal protective equipment between groups. Time to completing ETI was longer in the aerosol box group compared with the control group (mean difference: 10.2 seconds; 95% CI, 0.2 to 20.2 seconds; P = .04), but there was no difference between groups for LMA insertion (mean difference: 2.4 seconds; 95% CI, -8.7 to 13.5 seconds; P = .67). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of aerosol box use in AGMPs, use of an aerosol box reduced contamination deposition on HCPs' torso and face predoffing; the use of an aerosol box delayed time to successful intubation. These results suggest that the incremental benefits of reduced surface contamination from aerosol box use should be weighed against delayed time to complete intubation, which may negatively affect patient outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04880668.

Impact of time to intubation on mortality and pulmonary sequelae in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study.

QUESTION: We evaluated whether the time between first respiratory support and intubation of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) due to COVID-19 was associated with mortality or pulmonary sequelae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort of critical COVID-19 patients on IMV. Patients were classified as early intubation if they were intubated within the first 48 h from the first respiratory support or delayed intubation if they were intubated later. Surviving patients were evaluated after hospital discharge. RESULTS: We included 205 patients (140 with early IMV and 65 with delayed IMV). The median [p25;p75] age was 63 [56.0; 70.0] years, and 74.1% were male. The survival analysis showed a significant increase in the risk of mortality in the delayed group with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 2.45 (95% CI 1.29-4.65). The continuous predictor time to IMV showed a nonlinear association with the risk of in-hospital mortality. A multivariate mortality model showed that delay of IMV was a factor associated with mortality (HR of 2.40; 95% CI 1.42-4.1). During follow-up, patients in the delayed group showed a worse DLCO (mean difference of - 10.77 (95% CI - 18.40 to - 3.15), with a greater number of affected lobes (+ 1.51 [95% CI 0.89-2.13]) and a greater TSS (+ 4.35 [95% CI 2.41-6.27]) in the chest CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who required IMV, the delay in intubation from the first respiratory support was associated with an increase in hospital mortality and worse pulmonary sequelae during follow-up.

Large airway complications in COVID-19 pneumonia.

COVID-19 pneumonia can cause respiratory failure which requires specialist management. However the inflammatory nature of the condition and the interventions necessary to manage these patients such as endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy can lead to large airway pathology which may go unrecognised. We describe five of the 44 (11%) consecutive patients referred to our specialist ARDS team between April and June 2020 with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia who developed diverse large airway pathology which comprised of: supraglottic oedema, tracheal tear, tracheal granulation tissue formation, bronchomalacia, and tracheal diverticulum. Large airway pathology may be underappreciated in severely ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and should be considered in patients with unexplained air leak, prolonged need for mechanical ventilatory support, and repeated failed extubation or decannulation. If suspected, such patients should be managed by a team with expertise in large airway intervention and early specialist advice should be sought.

Combining viral genomics and clinical data to assess risk factors for severe COVID-19 (mortality, ICU admission, or intubation) amongst hospital patients in a large acute UK NHS hospital Trust.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, valuable datasets have been collected on the effects of the virus SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we combined whole genome sequencing data with clinical data (including clinical outcomes, demographics, comorbidity, treatment information) for 929 patient cases seen at a large UK hospital Trust between March 2020 and May 2021. We identified associations between acute physiological status and three measures of disease severity; admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), requirement for intubation, and mortality. Whilst the maximum National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) was moderately associated with severe COVID-19 (A = 0.48), the admission NEWS2 was only weakly associated (A = 0.17), suggesting it is ineffective as an early predictor of severity. Patient outcome was weakly associated with myriad factors linked to acute physiological status and human genetics, including age, sex and pre-existing conditions. Overall, we found no significant links between viral genomics and severe outcomes, but saw evidence that variant subtype may impact relative risk for certain sub-populations. Specific mutations of SARS-CoV-2 appear to have little impact on overall severity risk in these data, suggesting that emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants do not result in more severe patient outcomes. However, our results show that determining a causal relationship between mutations and severe COVID-19 in the viral genome is challenging. Whilst improved understanding of the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 has been achieved through genomics, few studies on how these evolutionary changes impact on clinical outcomes have been seen due to complexities associated with data linkage. By combining viral genomics with patient records in a large acute UK hospital, this study represents a significant resource for understanding risk factors associated with COVID-19 severity. However, further understanding will likely arise from studies of the role of host genetics on disease progression.

High-flow nasal cannula reduces intubation rate in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on intubation rate, 28-day intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs) and ICU length of stay (ICU LOS) in adult patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) associated with COVID-19. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase up to June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Only randomised controlled trials or cohort studies comparing HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19 were included up to June 2022. Studies conducted on children or pregnant women, and those not published in English were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts. Relevant information was extracted and curated in the tables. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials or cohort studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan V.5.4 computer software using a random effects model with a 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test (χ2) and Higgins I2 statistics, with subgroup analyses to account for sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Nine studies involving 3370 (1480 received HFNC) were included. HFNC reduced the intubation rate compared with COT (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, p=0.0007), decreased 28-day ICU mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97, p=0.04) and improved 28-day VFDs (mean difference (MD) 2.58, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.45, p<0.00001). However, HFNC had no effect on ICU LOS versus COT (MD 0.52, 95% CI -1.01 to 2.06, p=0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that HFNC may reduce intubation rate and 28-day ICU mortality, and improve 28-day VFDs in patients with ARF due to COVID-19 compared with COT. Large-scale randomised controlled trials are necessary to validate our findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022345713.