Clinical consensus recommendations regarding non-invasive respiratory support in the adult patient with acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Does the use of a diving mask adapted for non-invasive ventilation in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure in individuals with and without COVID-19 increase the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen? A randomized clinical trial

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can be used in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF); however, verifying the best interface for its use needs to be evaluated in the COVID-19 pandemic scenario. The objective of this study was to evaluate the behavior of the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2 ratio) in patients with AHRF with and without COVID-19 undergoing NIV with the conventional orofacial mask and the adapted diving mask. This is a randomized clinical trial in which patients were allocated into four groups: i) group 1: COVID-19 + adapted mask (n=12); ii) group 2: COVID-19 + conventional orofacial mask (n=12); iii) group 3: non-COVID-19 + adapted mask (n=2); iv) group 4: non-COVID-19 + conventional orofacial mask (n=12). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio was obtained 1, 24, and 48 hours after starting NIV, and the success of NIV was evaluated. This study followed the norms of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement and was registered in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials under registration RBR-7xmbgsz. Both the adapted diving mask and the conventional orofacial mask increased the PaO2/FiO2 ratio. The interfaces differed in terms of the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in the first hour [309.66 (11.48) and 275.71 (11.48), respectively] (p=0.042) and 48 hours [365.81 (16.85) and 308.79 (18.86), respectively] (p=0.021). NIV success was 91.7% in groups 1, 2, and 3, and 83.3% in group 4. No adverse effects related to interfaces or NIV were observed. NIV through the conventional orofacial mask interfaces and the adapted diving mask was effective in improving the PaO2/FiO2 ratio; however, the adapted mask presented a better PaO2/FiO2 ratio during use. There was no significant difference between interfaces regarding NIV failure.

Clinical Outcomes of Severe COVID-19 Patients Admitted to an Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit

Introduction: Many severe COVID-19 patients require respiratory support and monitoring. An intermediate respiratory care unit (IMCU) may be a valuable element for optimizing patient care and limited health-care resources management. We aim to assess the clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients admitted to an IMCU. Methods: Observational, retrospective study including patients admitted to the IMCU due to COVID-19 pneumonia during the months of March and April 2020. Patients were stratified based on their requirement of transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and on survival status at the end of follow-up. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards method was used to assess risk factors associated with mortality. Results: A total of 253 patients were included. Of them, 68% were male and median age was 65 years (IQR 18 years). Ninety-two patients (36.4%) required ICU transfer. Patients transferred to the ICU had a higher mortality rate (44.6 vs. 24.2%; p < 0.001). Multivariable proportional hazards model showed that age ≥65 years (HR 4.14; 95%CI 2.31-7.42; p < 0.001); chronic respiratory conditions (HR 2.34; 95%CI 1.38-3.99; p = 0.002) and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.96; 95%CI 1.61-5.43; p < 0.001) were independently associated with mortality. High-dose systemic corticosteroids followed by progressive dose tapering showed a lower risk of death (HR 0.15; 95%CI 0.06-0.40; p < 0.001). Conclusions: IMCU may be a useful tool for the multidisciplinary management of severe COVID-19 patients requiring respiratory support and non-invasive monitoring, therefore reducing ICU burden. Older age and chronic respiratory or renal conditions are associated with worse clinical outcomes, while treatment with systemic corticosteroids may have a protective effect on mortality.

Early versus late tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients: a "pros/cons" debate also considering heart-lung interactions

The best timing of orotracheal intubation and invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome is unknown. The use of non-invasive ventilation, a life-saving technique in many medical conditions, is debated in patients with ARDS since prolonged NIV and delayed intubation may be harmful. Shortage of intensive care beds and ventilators during a respiratory pandemic can trigger a widespread use of early non-invasive ventilation in many hospitals but which is the best way to ventilate patients with severe bilateral pneumonia and severely increased spontaneous ventilation is controversial. Moreover, viral spreading to health-care workers and other hospitalized patients is an issue for any device used to administer oxygen. Even if protective mechanical ventilation is currently the gold standard for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome, tracheal intubation is not without risks and is associated with delirium, hemodynamic instability, immobilization and post intensive care syndrome. Both invasive and non-invasive ventilation are associated with advantages and limitations that should be carefully considered when patients with COVID-19-ARDS need our attention. In the absence of strong evidence, in this review we highlight all the pro and con of these two different approaches.