COVID-19: booster(s) vs. hospitalization and Intensive Care Unit admission.

OBJECTIVE: As the pandemic continues, different vaccine protocols have been implemented to maintain the protection of vaccines and to provide protection against new variants. The aim of this study was to assess hospitalized patients' vaccination status and document the efficacy of boosters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients that were hospitalized due to COVID-19 were enrolled from 28 hospitals in Turkey for five months from September 2021. 5,331 confirmed COVID-19 patients from collaborating centers were randomly enrolled to understand/estimate the distribution of vaccination status in hospitalized patients and to compare the efficacy of vaccination/booster protocols. RESULTS: 2,779 men and 2,552 women of which 2,408 (45.2%) were admitted to Intensive Care Units participated in this study. It was found that the highest risk reduction for all age groups was found in groups that received 4 doses. Four doses of vaccination for every 3.7 people under 50 years of age, for every 5.7 people in the 50-64 age group, and for every 4.3 people over 65 years of age will prevent 1 patient from being admitted to intensive care. Regardless of the type of vaccine, it was found that the risk of ICU hospitalization decreased in those who were vaccinated compared to those who were not vaccinated. Regardless of the type of vaccine, the ICU risk was found to decrease 1.25-fold in those who received 1 or 2 doses of vaccine, 1.18-fold in those who received 3 doses, and 3.26-fold in those who received 4 doses. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that the addition of a fourth dose is more effective in preventing intensive unit care even in disadvantaged groups.

How do I wean a patient with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure from noninvasive ventilation?

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been increasingly used for the management of different etiologies of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF). Although NIV implementation has been framed well by the guidelines, limited number of studies evaluated the NIV weaning strategies, including a gradual decrease in the level of ventilator support and/or duration of NIV as well as abrupt discontinuation, once respiratory acidosis and distress have resolved. None of the methods have yet been established to be superior to the other in terms of the success rate of weaning and duration of NIV; as well as mortality, length of stay (LOS) in hospital, respiratory ICU (RICU), and ICU.  Patient-derived factors, such as etiology of AHRF, disease severity, history of prior NIV use, and clinical status can help to predict NIV weaning outcome and eventually choose the best method for each individual. In this paper, we have described the strategies for weaning a patient with AHRF from NIV and provided a quick guide for implementation of these data into daily practice based on our experience in and the current scientific evidence.

High-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bi-level positive pressure ventilation is a first-line intervention for selected patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIV may reduce endotracheal intubation, death, and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), but its use is often limited by patient tolerance and treatment failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a potential alternative treatment in this patient population and may be better tolerated. RESEARCH QUESTION: For patients presenting with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, is HFNC an effective alternative to NIV in reducing the need for intubation? METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane library from database inception through to October 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adults with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure assigned to receive HFNC or NIV. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess risk of bias. We calculated pooled relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (n = 528) in the final analysis. The use of HFNC compared to NIV did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48-1.56, low certainty), or our secondary outcomes including endotracheal intubation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.39, low certainty), or hospital LOS (MD - 0.82 days, 95% CI - 1.83-0.20, high certainty). There was no difference in change in partial pressure of carbon dioxide between groups (MD - 1.87 mmHg, 95% CI - 5.34-1.60, moderate certainty). INTERPRETATION: The current body of evidence is limited in determining whether HFNC may be either superior, inferior, or equivalent to NIV for patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure given imprecision and study heterogeneity. Further studies are needed to better understand the effect of HFNC on this population.

Pneumonia severity indices predict prognosis in coronavirus disease-2019.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition of the severe illness is critical in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) to provide best care and optimize the use of limited resources. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the predictive properties of common community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) severity scores and COVID-19 specific indices. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort, COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a teaching hospital between 18 March-20 May 2020 were included. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics related to severity and mortality were measured and CURB-65, PSI, A-DROP, CALL, and COVID-GRAM scores were calculated as defined previously in the literature. Progression to severe disease and in-hospital/overall mortality during the follow-up of the patients were determined from electronic records. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard regression model was used. The discrimination capability of pneumonia severity indices was evaluated by receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight patients were included in the study. Sixty-two patients (20.8%) presented with severe COVID-19 while thirty-one (10.4%) developed severe COVID-19 at any time from the admission. In-hospital mortality was 39 (13.1%) while the overall mortality was 44 (14.8%). The mortality in low-risk groups that were identified to manage outside the hospital was 0 in CALL Class A, 1.67% in PSI low risk, and 2.68% in CURB-65 low-risk. However, the AUCs for the mortality prediction in COVID-19 were 0.875, 0.873, 0.859, 0.855, and 0.828 for A-DROP, PSI, CURB-65, COVID-GRAM, and CALL scores respectively. The AUCs for the prediction of progression to severe disease was 0.739, 0.711, 0,697, 0.673, and 0.668 for CURB-65, CALL, PSI, COVID-GRAM, A-DROP respectively. The hazard ratios (HR) for the tested pneumonia severity indices demonstrated that A-DROP and CURB-65 scores had the strongest association with mortality, and PSI, and COVID-GRAM scores predicted mortality independent from age and comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) scores can predict in COVID-19. The indices proposed specifically to COVID-19 work less than nonspecific scoring systems surprisingly. The CALL score may be used to decide outpatient management in COVID-19.

European Respiratory Society guidelines on long-term home non-invasive ventilation for management of COPD

While the role of acute non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been shown to improve outcome in acute life-threatening hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD, the evidence of clinical efficacy of long-term home NIV (LTH-NIV) for management of COPD is less. This document provides evidence-based recommendations for the clinical application of LTH-NIV in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients. The European Respiratory Society task force committee was composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in the field of LTH-NIV. The committee developed recommendations based on the GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. The GRADE Evidence to Decision framework was used to formulate recommendations. A number of topics were addressed under a narrative format which provides a useful context for clinicians and patients. The task force committee delivered conditional recommendations for four actionable PICO (target population-intervention-comparator-outcome) questions, 1) suggesting for the use of LTH-NIV in stable hypercapnic COPD; 2) suggesting for the use of LTH-NIV in COPD patients following a COPD exacerbation requiring acute NIV 3) suggesting for the use of NIV settings targeting a reduction in carbon dioxide and 4) suggesting for using fixed pressure support as first choice ventilator mode. Managing hypercapnia may be an important intervention for improving the health outcome of COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure. The task force conditionally supports the application of LTH-NIV to improve health outcome by targeting a reduction in carbon dioxide in COPD patients with persistent hypercapnic respiratory failure. These recommendations should be applied in clinical practice by practitioners that routinely care for chronic hypercapnic COPD patients.