Nasal high flow therapy use in wards in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may spare ICU resources.

Nasal high flow therapy has been previously studied for the management of acute hypoxic respiratory failure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but the data regarding its use outside of the intensive care unit are sparse. We aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of nasal high flow therapy outside of the intensive care unit in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and known chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We conducted a retrospective matched historic cohort study of adult patients with diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease presenting with acute hypoxic respiratory failure between December 2017 to June 2019, after the initiation of a new protocol, which allowed patients to be managed with nasal high flow therapy on the medical/surgical wards instead of transferring them to the ICU per prior standard of care. Nasal high flow therapy was initiated either in the emergency department or on the medical/surgical wards. Patients were matched with historical cohorts who were managed with prior standard of care based on age, body mass index, comorbidities, and home oxygen use. Primary outcome of interest was difference in rates of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, total number of days spent in the intensive care unit, and in-hospital mortality. A total of 90 patients met study inclusion criteria and were matched to 90 historical control patients. Among the study group, 8% required mechanical ventilation versus 9% in the control group (p = 0.79). Hospital length of stay was 7 days in study group versus 6 days in control group (p = 0.02), and in-hospital mortality was the same in both study and control groups at 12% (p = 0.99). Nineteen percent of study group patients required ICU level of care at any time during the admission compared with 49% of control group (p < 0.001). Nasal high flow therapy use in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outside of the intensive care unit may spare ICU resources and cost without delay in definitive care such as mechanical ventilation.

Pentoxifylline or theophylline use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support.

INTRODUCTION: The phosphodiesterase inhibitors theophylline and pentoxifylline have anti-inflammatory properties that may make them useful in COVID-19 pneumonia. We conducted a retrospective review of hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen who received these drugs. OBJECTIVES: To examine the potential efficacy and safety of theophylline and pentoxifylline in COVID-19 pneumonia patients. METHODS: Adults with a positive test for SARS-COV2 and were hospitalized due to pneumonia requiring either high flow nasal cannula or mechanical ventilation were included. Patients with a history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were preferentially given theophylline. All other patients received pentoxifylline 400 mg orally TID. A group of hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving standard of care acted as a comparison group. The coprimary outcomes were a change in C-reactive protein (CRP) and ROX score between groups from day 1 to day 4 of therapy. RESULTS: Two hundred and nine inpatients were reviewed. Fifty-eight patients received pentoxifylline/theophylline, with 151 patients serving as the comparison group. Active therapy was associated with an increase in the ROX score (mean: 2.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 5.1)) and decrease in CRP (mean: -0.7 (95% CI: -4.7, 3.2). Mortality rates were theophylline/pentoxifylline 24% and comparison group had a 26%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, theophylline and pentoxifylline were associated with an increase in ROX score and nominal decreases in CRP and mortality. Treatment was safe with few adverse reactions documented. We believe that this study could the basis for randomized-controlled trials to further explore these drugs' role in COVID-19.

Implementation of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy Outside the Intensive Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an option for respiratory support in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure. To improve patient outcomes, reduce ICU-associated costs, and ease ICU bed availability, a multi-phased, comprehensive strategy was implemented to make HFNC available outside the ICU under the supervision of pulmonology or trauma providers in cooperation with a dedicated respiratory therapy team. The purpose of this study was to describe the education and implementation process for initiating HFNC therapy outside the ICU and to convey key patient demographics and outcomes from the implementation period. METHODS: HFNC therapy was implemented at a tertiary hospital in the Midwest, with systematic roll-out to all in-patient floors over a 9-month period. Utilization of the therapy and patient outcomes were tracked to ensure safety and efficacy of the effort. RESULTS: During the implementation period, 346 unique subjects met study inclusion criteria. Median (interquartile range) hospital length of stay was 8 d (4-12), and median duration of HFNC therapy was 44 h (18-90). Two thirds of subjects (n = 238) received the entire course of HFNC therapy outside the ICU, and more than half of subjects (n = 184) avoided the ICU for their entire hospitalization. Moreover, 6% of subjects in the study group escalated from HFNC to noninvasive ventilation, and 5% of subjects escalated from HFNC to mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive implementation process and a robust therapy protocol were integral to initiating and managing HFNC in all hospital locations. Study findings indicate that patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure can safely receive HFNC therapy outside the ICU with appropriate patient selection and staff education.