High flow nasal cannula outside the ICU provides optimal care and maximizes hospital resources for patients with multiple rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use reduces work of breathing and improves oxygenation for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Limited prior work has explored protocolized use of HFNC for trauma patients outside the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate use of HFNC for patients with rib fractures when therapy was standard of care on all floors of the hospital. METHODS: In 2018, the study hospital expanded use of HFNC (AIRVO; Fisher Paykel, Auckland, NZ) to all floors of the hospital, making it available in the ICU, Emergency Department (ED), and on general inpatient floors. The study group included adult patients with three or more rib fractures who received HFNC at any location in the hospital (Phase 2: January 2018-December 2019). The study group was compared to a historical control group when HFNC was available only in the ICU (Phase 1: March 2013-July 2015). Patients were excluded from the study if they received invasive mechanical ventilation prior to HFNC. Primary outcomes were mechanical ventilation rates, ICU days, length of hospitalization, and mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 63 patients received HFNC, with 35% of patients (n = 22) receiving the duration of therapy outside the ICU. When compared to the control group (N = 63), there were no significant differences in total hospital days (9 vs. 9, p=.64), mechanical ventilation (19% vs. 13%, p=.47), or mortality (3% vs. 5%, p = 1.00). Twenty-seven percent of patients (n = 17) in the study group avoided the ICU during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that HFNC therapy can be safely initiated and managed on all hospital floors for patients with multiple rib fractures. Making the therapy available outside the ICU may reduce healthcare resource use without adversely affecting patient outcomes.

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.

Awake Prone Positioning in Non-Intubated Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been advocated to improve oxygenation and prevent intubation of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This paper aims to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of APP. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of proportional outcomes from observational studies to compare intubation rate in patients treated with APP or with standard care. RESULTS: A total of 46 published and 4 unpublished observational studies that included 2,994 subjects were included, of which 921 were managed with APP and 870 were managed with usual care. APP was associated with significant improvement of oxygenation parameters in 381 cases of 19 studies that reported this outcome. Among the 41 studies assessing intubation rates (870 subjects treated with APP and 852 subjects treated with usual care), the intubation rate was 27% (95% CI 19-37%) as compared to 30% (95% CI 20-42%) (P = .71), even when duration of application, use of adjunctive respiratory assist device (high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation), and severity of oxygenation deficit were taken into account. There appeared to be a trend toward improved mortality when APP was compared with usual care (11% vs 22%), which was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: APP was associated with improvement of oxygenation but did not reduce the intubation rate in subjects with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. This finding is limited by the high heterogeneity and the observational nature of included studies. Randomized controlled clinical studies are needed to definitively assess whether APP could improve key outcome such as intubation rate and mortality in these patients.

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.

Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, controlled, multinational, open-label meta-trial.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been reported to improve oxygenation for patients with COVID-19 in retrospective and observational studies, but whether it improves patient-centred outcomes is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of awake prone positioning to prevent intubation or death in patients with severe COVID-19 in a large-scale randomised trial. METHODS: In this prospective, a priori set up and defined, collaborative meta-trial of six randomised controlled open-label superiority trials, adults who required respiratory support with high-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were randomly assigned to awake prone positioning or standard care. Hospitals from six countries were involved: Canada, France, Ireland, Mexico, USA, Spain. Patients or their care providers were not masked to allocated treatment. The primary composite outcome was treatment failure, defined as the proportion of patients intubated or dying within 28 days of enrolment. The six trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04325906, NCT04347941, NCT04358939, NCT04395144, NCT04391140, and NCT04477655. FINDINGS: Between April 2, 2020 and Jan 26, 2021, 1126 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to awake prone positioning (n=567) or standard care (n=559). 1121 patients (excluding five who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Treatment failure occurred in 223 (40%) of 564 patients assigned to awake prone positioning and in 257 (46%) of 557 patients assigned to standard care (relative risk 0·86 [95% CI 0·75-0·98]). The hazard ratio (HR) for intubation was 0·75 (0·62-0·91), and the HR for mortality was 0·87 (0·68-1·11) with awake prone positioning compared with standard care within 28 days of enrolment. The incidence of prespecified adverse events was low and similar in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Awake prone positioning of patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 reduces the incidence of treatment failure and the need for intubation without any signal of harm. These results support routine awake prone positioning of patients with COVID-19 who require support with high-flow nasal cannula. FUNDING: Open AI inc, Rice Foundation, Projet Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique Interrégional, Appel d'Offre 2020, Groupement Interrégional de Recherche Clinique et d'Innovation Grand Ouest, Association pour la Promotion à Tours de la Réanimation Médicale, Fond de dotation du CHRU de Tours, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd.

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.

Apparent interference with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation by liposomal amphotericin B in a patient with disseminated blastomycosis receiving continuous renal replacement therapy.

PURPOSE: We describe the use of liposomal amphotericin B and amphotericin B deoxycholate in a critically ill patient with pulmonary blastomycosis receiving both venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). SUMMARY: A 50-year-old African American man presented for dyspnea and cough and was noted to have blastomycosis on bronchoscopy. He developed respiratory failure and acute kidney injury, requiring mechanical ventilation, ECMO, and CRRT. After 4 days of liposomal amphotericin, the transmembrane pressure gradient on the membrane oxygenator increased dramatically without visualization of a clot, requiring a circuit exchange. A trough amphotericin B level taken the day before the exchange was undetectable for amphotericin B. After the circuit exchange, the patient was switched to amphotericin B deoxycholate. A subsequent trough level was 3.8 µg/mL. The patient improved and was able to be decannulated. However, he did require tracheostomy and long-term hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: In our case we believe that liposomal amphotericin B was significantly removed by ECMO and was responsible for the failure of the ECMO circuit. We would suggest amphotericin B deoxycholate be used in such patients preferentially and that serum levels of the drug be assessed when possible.

Proactive Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula With Critically Ill Subjects.

INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could be a first-line therapy for patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure. The purpose of this study was to determine if protocolized use of HFNC decreases unplanned intubation and adverse outcomes in an ICU population. METHODS: The study was a prospective evaluation of 2 cohorts who received HFNC per protocol. Control groups were retrospective selections of subjects who received HFNC in the pre-protocol period. Cohort 1 (n = 88) received mechanical ventilation for ≥ 24 h and was extubated directly to HFNC following strict protocol criteria. Cohort 2 (n = 83) were placed on HFNC when oxygen requirements escalated (>4 L/min). RESULTS: Cohort 1 did not differ from its control group in mortality, hospital stay, or ICU days, but there were significant decreases in incidence of Gram-negative pulmonary infection (30% vs 9%, P = .001) and use of bronchodilator therapy (81% vs 61%, P = .008). Failed extubation rates were nearly identical across groups, but time to re-intubation was shorter in the protocol group (24 vs 13 h, P = .19). Cohort 2 did not differ significantly from its control group in intubation rates or mortality, but subjects managed by protocol experienced significant decreases in ICU days (4 vs 3 d, P = .03) and hospital days (12 vs 8 d, P = .007). There was a trend toward fewer hours on HFNC (33 vs 24 h, P = .10) and faster time to intubation when HFNC failed (19 vs 9 h, P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Extubation to HFNC led to a significant decrease in pulmonary infections and bronchodilator therapy in Cohort 1 but did not reduce length of stay or rates of failed extubation. When HFNC was used early and per protocol (Cohort 2), ICU and hospital lengths of stay were reduced and HFNC was initiated more quickly when the need for respiratory support escalated.