A new index, Respiratory Insufficiency index and Modified Early Warning Scores predict extubation failure.

Background: Extubation failure occurs in 5%-20% of patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. The primary aim of this project was to determine the predictive ability of the Respiratory Insufficiency (RI) index, Respiratory Oxygenation (ROX) index and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) in identifying extubation failure. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a prior cross-sectional retrospective study conducted from February 2018 through December 2018 among adult subjects who received mechanical ventilation for more than 24 h. Extubation failure was defined as the need for reintubation or rescue non-invasive ventilation (NIV) within 48 h after planned extubation. Univariate analysis and logistic regression were used to identify the predictors and final model was validated using 10-fold cross validation. Nomogram was constructed based on the final model. Results: Of 216 enrolled subjects, 46 (21.3%) experienced extubation failure. The median RI index 1-h post extubation was 20 [interquartile range [IQR] 16.33-24.24] for success group and 27.02 [IQR 22.42-33.83] for the failure group (P<0.001). The median ROX index 1-h post extubation was 16.66 [IQR 12.57-19.84] for success group and 11.11 [IQR 8.09-14.67] for failure group (P<0.001). The median MEWS 1-h post extubation was 2 [IQR 1-3] for the success group and 4 [IQR 3-5] for the failure group (P<0.001). In multivariable analysis, age >60 years [OR 3.89 (95% CI 1.56-9.73); P=0.004], MEWS >4 [OR 4.01 (95% CI (1.59-10.14); P=0.003] and, RI index >20 [OR 4.50 (95% CI 1.43-14.21); P=0.010] were independently associated with extubation failure. Conclusion: In the present study, RI index and MEWS were independently associated with predicting extubation failure within 1 h of extubation. A prospective validation study is warranted to establish the role of these indices in predicting extubation outcome.

Aerosol-Generating Procedures and Virus Transmission.

During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, many respiratory therapies were classified as aerosol-generating procedures. This categorization resulted in a broad range of clinical concerns and a shortage of essential medical resources for some patients. In the past 2 years, many studies have assessed the transmission risk posed by various respiratory care procedures. These studies are discussed in this narrative review, with recommendations for mitigating transmission risk based on the current evidence.

Efficacy of Various Mitigation Devices in Reducing Fugitive Emissions from Nebulizers.

BACKGROUND: Fugitive aerosol concentrations generated by different nebulizers and interfaces in vivo and mitigation of aerosol dispersion into the environment with various commercially available devices are not known. METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers were given 3 mL saline with a small-volume nebulizer (SVN) or vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) with a mouthpiece, a mouthpiece with an exhalation filter, an aerosol mask with open ports for SVN and a valved face mask for VMN, and a face mask with a scavenger (Exhalo) in random order. Five of the participants received treatments using a face tent scavenger (Vapotherm) and a mask with exhalation filter with SVN and VMN in a random order. Treatments were performed in an ICU room with 2 particle counters positioned 1 and 3 ft from participants measuring aerosol concentrations at sizes of 0.3-10.0 µm at baseline, before, during, and after each treatment. RESULTS: Fugitive aerosol concentrations were higher with SVN than VMN and higher with a face mask than a mouthpiece. Adding an exhalation filter to a mouthpiece reduced aerosol concentrations of 0.3-1.0 µm in size for VMN and 0.3-3.0 µm for SVN (all P < .05). An Exhalo scavenger over the mask reduced 0.5-3.0 µm sized particle concentrations for SVN (all P < .05) but not VMN. Vapotherm scavenger and filter face mask reduced fugitive aerosol concentrations regardless of the nebulizer type. CONCLUSIONS: SVN produced higher fugitive aerosol concentrations than VMN, whereas face masks generated higher aerosol concentrations than mouthpieces. Adding an exhalation filter to the mouthpiece or a scavenger to the face mask reduced aerosol concentrations for both SVN and VMN. Vapotherm scavenger and filter face mask reduced fugitive aerosols as effectively as a mouthpiece with an exhalation filter. This study provides guidance for reducing fugitive aerosol emissions from nebulizers in clinical practice.

Mitigating Fugitive Aerosols During Aerosol Delivery via High-Flow Nasal Cannula Devices.

BACKGROUND: Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has attracted clinical interest in recent years. However, both HFNC and nebulization are categorized as aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). In vitro studies raised concerns that AGPs had high transmission risk. Very few in vivo studies examined fugitive aerosols with nebulization via HFNC, and effective methods to mitigate aerosol dispersion are unknown. METHODS: Two HFNC devices (Airvo 2 and Vapotherm) with or without a vibrating mesh nebulizer were compared; HFNC alone, surgical mask over HFNC interface, and HFNC with face tent scavenger were used in a random order for 9 healthy volunteers. Fugitive aerosol concentrations at sizes of 0.3-10.0 µm were continuously measured by particle sizers placed at 1 and 3 ft from participants. On a different day, 6 of the 9 participants received 6 additional nebulizer treatments via vibrating mesh nebulizer or small-volume nebulizer (SVN) with a face mask or a mouthpiece with/without an expiratory filter. In vitro simulation was employed to quantify inhaled dose of albuterol with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 and Vapotherm. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, neither HFNC device generated higher aerosol concentrations. Compared to HFNC alone, vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 generated higher 0.3-1.0 µm particles (all P < .05), but vibrating mesh nebulizer via Vapotherm did not. Concentrations of 1.0-3.0 µm particles with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 were similar with vibrating mesh nebulizer and a mouthpiece/face mask but less than SVN with a mouthpiece/face mask (all P < .05). Placing a surgical mask over HFNC during nebulization reduced 0.5-1.0 µm particles (all P < .05) to levels similar to the use of a nebulizer with mouthpiece and expiratory filter. In vitro the inhaled dose of albuterol with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 was ≥ 6 times higher than vibrating mesh nebulizer via Vapotherm. CONCLUSIONS: During aerosol delivery via HFNC, Airvo 2 generated higher inhaled dose and consequently higher fugitive aerosols than Vapotherm. Simple measures, such as placing a surgical mask over nasal cannula during nebulization via HFNC, could effectively reduce fugitive aerosol concentrations.

Early versus late awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) is widely used in the management of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this study was to compare the outcome of COVID-19 patients who received early versus late APP. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of data collected for a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906). Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 who received APP for at least one hour were included. Early prone positioning was defined as APP initiated within 24 h of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) start. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and intubation rate. RESULTS: We included 125 patients (79 male) with a mean age of 62 years. Of them, 92 (73.6%) received early APP and 33 (26.4%) received late APP. Median time from HFNC initiation to APP was 2.25 (0.8-12.82) vs 36.35 (30.2-75.23) hours in the early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. Average APP duration was 5.07 (2.0-9.05) and 3.0 (1.09-5.64) hours per day in early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. The early APP group had lower mortality compared to the late APP group (26% vs 45%, p = 0.039), but no difference was found in intubation rate. Advanced age (OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.0-1.95], p = 0.001), intubation (OR 10.65 [95% CI 2.77-40.91], p = 0.001), longer time to initiate APP (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.0-1.04], p = 0.047) and hydrocortisone use (OR 6.2 [95% CI 1.23-31.1], p = 0.027) were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation (< 24 h of HFNC use) of APP in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 improves 28-day survival. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906.

Prone positioning for patients intubated for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19: a retrospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The role of repeated prone positioning in intubated subjects with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19 remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of critically ill intubated patients with COVID-19 who were placed in the prone position between March 18, 2020 and March 31, 2020. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, reintubation, and previous prone positioning at a referring hospital. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was oxygenation assessed by partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (Pao2/Fio2) ratio. A positive response to proning was defined as an increase in Pao2/Fio2 ratio ≥20%. Treatment failure of prone positioning was defined as death or requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). RESULTS: Forty-two subjects (29 males; age: 59 [52-69] yr) were eligible for analysis. Nine subjects were placed in the prone position only once, with 25 requiring prone positioning on three or more occasions. A total of 31/42 (74%) subjects survived to discharge, with five requiring ECMO; 11/42 (26%) subjects died. After the first prone positioning session, Pao2/Fio2 (mean (standard deviation)) ratio increased from 17.9 kPa (7.2) to 28.2 kPa (12.2) (P<0.01). After the initial prone positioning session, subjects who were discharged from hospital were more likely to have an improvement in Pao2/Fio2 ratio ≥20%, compared with those requiring ECMO or who died. CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome frequently responded to initial prone positioning with improved oxygenation. Subsequent prone positioning in subjects discharged from hospital was associated with greater improvements in oxygenation.