Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals

Effect of noninvasive ventilation on mortality and clinical outcomes among patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia after high-flow nasal oxygen failure: a multicenter retrospective French cohort with propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

We assessed the effect of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on mortality and length of stay after high flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) failure among patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective study, we enrolled COVID-19 patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) for severe COVID-19 pneumonia with a HFNO failure from December 2020 to January 2022. The primary outcome was to compare the 90-day mortality between patients who required a straight intubation after HFNO failure and patients who received NIV after HFNO failure. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay. A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounding factors between groups. Exploratory outcomes included a subgroup analysis for 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

We included 461 patients with HFNO failure in the analysis, 233 patients in the straight intubation group and 228 in the NIV group. The 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between groups, 58/228 (25.4%) int the NIV group compared with 59/233 (25.3%) in the straight intubation group, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) after propensity score weighting of 0.82 [95%CI, 0.50-1.35] (p = 0.434). ICU length of stay was significantly shorter in the NIV group compared to the straight intubation group, 10.0 days [IQR, 7.0-19.8] versus 18.0 days [IQR,11.0-31.0] with a propensity score weighted HR of 1.77 [95%CI, 1.29-2.43] (p < 0.001). A subgroup analysis showed a significant increase in mortality rate for intubated patients in the NIV group with 56/122 (45.9%), compared to 59/233 (25.3%) for patients in the straight intubation group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In severely hypoxemic COVID-19 patients, no significant differences were observed on 90-day mortality between patients receiving straight intubation and those receiving NIV after HFNO failure. NIV strategy was associated with a significant reduction in ICU length of stay, despite an increase in mortality in the subgroup of patients finally intubated.

Comparison between high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) alternated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and HFNO and NIV alone in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive respiratory support (conventional oxygen therapy [COT], non-invasive ventilation [NIV], high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO], and NIV alternated with HFNO [NIV + HFNO] may reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with COVID-19. The outcome of patients treated non-invasively depends on clinical severity at admission. We assessed the need for IMV according to NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO in patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity and evaluated in-hospital survival rates and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay.

METHODS

This cohort study was conducted using data collected between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were included. Patients hospitalized for < 3 days, receiving therapy (COT, NIV, HFNO, or NIV + HFNO) for < 48 h, pregnant, and with no primary outcome data were excluded. The COT group was used as reference for multivariate Cox regression model adjustment.

RESULTS

Of 1371 patients screened, 958 were eligible: 692 (72.2%) on COT, 92 (9.6%) on NIV, 31 (3.2%) on HFNO, and 143 (14.9%) on NIV + HFNO. The results for the patients in each group were as follows: median age (interquartile range): NIV (64 [49-79] years), HFNO (62 [55-70] years), NIV + HFNO (62 [48-72] years) (p = 0.615); heart failure: NIV (54.5%), HFNO (36.3%), NIV + HFNO (9%) (p = 0.003); diabetes mellitus: HFNO (17.6%), NIV + HFNO (44.7%) (p = 0.048). > 50% lung damage on chest computed tomography (CT): NIV (13.3%), HFNO (15%), NIV + HFNO (71.6%) (p = 0.038); SpO2/FiO2: NIV (271 [118-365] mmHg), HFNO (317 [254-420] mmHg), NIV + HFNO (229 [102-317] mmHg) (p = 0.001); rate of IMV: NIV (26.1%, p = 0.002), HFNO (22.6%, p = 0.023), NIV + HFNO (46.8%); survival rate: HFNO (83.9%), NIV + HFNO (63.6%) (p = 0.027); ICU length of stay: NIV (8.5 [5-14] days), NIV + HFNO (15 [10-25] days (p < 0.001); hospital length of stay: NIV (13 [10-21] days), NIV + HFNO (20 [15-30] days) (p < 0.001). After adjusting for comorbidities, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2, the risk of IMV in patients on NIV + HFNO remained high (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with COVID-19, NIV alternating with HFNO was associated with a higher rate of IMV independent of the presence of comorbidities, chest CT score and SpO2/FiO2. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05579080.

Noninvasive respiratory support in the emergency department: Controversies and state-of-the-art recommendations

Acute respiratory failure is a common reason for emergency department visits and hospital admissions. Diverse underlying physiologic abnormalities lead to unique aspects about the most common causes of acute respiratory failure: acute decompensated heart failure, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and acute de novo hypoxemic respiratory failure. Noninvasive respiratory support strategies are increasingly used methods to support work of breathing and improve gas exchange abnormalities to improve outcomes relative to conventional oxygen therapy or invasive mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive respiratory support includes noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow, each with unique physiologic mechanisms. This paper will review the physiology of respiratory failure and noninvasive respiratory support modalities and offer data and guideline-driven recommendations in the context of key clinical controversies.

Acute Respiratory Failure From Early Pandemic COVID-19: Noninvasive Respiratory Support vs Mechanical Ventilation

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for initial respiratory support in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 is unclear, and the initial strategy may affect outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Which initial respiratory support strategy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support and admitted to a large health care network were eligible for inclusion. We compared patients treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation by facemask or high-flow nasal oxygen) with patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The primary outcome was time to in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included unweighted and weighted assessments of mortality, lengths of stay (ICU and hospital), and time to intubation.

RESULTS

Nearly one-half of the 2,354 patients (47%) who met inclusion criteria received IMV first, and 53% received initial NIRS. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 38% (37% for IMV and 39% for NIRS). Initial NIRS was associated with an increased hazard of death compared with initial IMV (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.94), but also an increased hazard of leaving the hospital sooner that waned with time (noninvasive support by time interaction: hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with COVID-19 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure initially treated with NIRS showed an increased hazard of in-hospital death.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are important respiratory support strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the results are conflicting for the risk of intubation with HFNC as compared to COT.

OBJECTIVES

We systematically synthesized the outcomes of HFNC relative to COT in COVID-19 patients with AHRF and evaluated these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.

DESIGN

This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

In total, 20 studies with 5732 patients were included. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation in HFNC compared to COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.82, p = 0.0009, I2 = 75%]. Similarly, we found HFNC was associated with lower risk of intubation rate compared to COT in the subgroup of patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55-0.86, p = 0.0007, I2 = 45%), and who were in ICU settings at enrollment (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85, p = 0.005, I2 = 80%). HFNC was associated with an improvement of PaO2/FiO2 and respiratory rate compared to COT. The use of HFNC compared to COT did not reduce the mortality rate, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Compared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, particularly among patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg and those in ICU settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022339072).

Prone versus lateral position in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients with HFNO therapy: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled open-label trial

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is a leading treatment technique for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but its treatment failure rate remains high. The awake prone position (APP) has been proven to increase oxygenation and reduce the endotracheal intubation rate in patients with COVID-19-induced AHRF. However, the APP is poorly tolerated in patients, and its performance in improving prognoses is controversial. The lateral position has a similar mechanism and effect to the prone position, but it is more tolerable than the prone position. Therefore, it is worth exploring whether the lateral position is better for awake patients with AHRF.

METHODS

This is a protocol for a three-arm parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled open-label exploratory trial. A total of 583 patients from two hospitals in Chongqing, China, will be randomised to take the semi-recumbent position, lateral position, or prone position at a ratio of 1:1:1. Patients are all diagnosed with AHRF secondary to non-COVID-19 pneumonia or lung infection and receiving HFNO therapy. The primary outcome is ventilator-free days in 28 days. The secondary outcomes are the 28-day intubation rate, 28-day all-cause mortality, total position change time, the incidence of adverse events, number of hours using HFNO therapy, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and others. We will conduct subgroup analyses on the arterial partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspiration oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio (> 200 mmHg or ≤ 200 mmHg), time from admission to intervention implementation (< 24 h or ≥ 24 h), position changing time, and different diagnoses.

DISCUSSION

This trial will explore the prognostic effects of the APP with that of the lateral position in awake patients with non-COVID-19AHRF and compare the differences between them. To provide evidence for clinical decision-making and further research on position management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The registration number is ChiCTR2200055822 . Registered on January 20, 2022.

High flow nasal oxygen in frail COVID-19 patients hospitalized in intermediate care units and non-eligible to invasive mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

In COVID-19 patients, older age (sixty or older), comorbidities, and frailty are associated with a higher risk for mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) failure. It therefore seems appropriate to suggest limitations of care to older and vulnerable patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and a poor expected outcome, who would not benefit from invasive treatment. HFNO (high flow nasal oxygen) is a non-invasive respiratory support device already used in de novo acute respiratory failure. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the survival of patients treated with HFNO outside the ICU (intensive care unit) for a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, otherwise presenting limitations of care making them non-eligible for IMV. Secondary objectives were the description of our cohort and the identification of prognostic factors for HFNO failure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study. We included all patients with limitations of care making them non-eligible for IMV and treated with HFNO for a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, hospitalized in a COVID-19 unit of the pulmonology department of Lyon Sud University Hospital, France, from March 2020 to March 2021. Primary outcome was the description of the vital status at day-30 after HFNO initiation, using the WHO (World Health Organization) 7-points ordinal scale.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were included. Median age was 83 years [76.3-87.0], mean duration for HFNO was 7.5 days, 53% had a CFS score (Clinical Frailty Scale) >4. At day-30, 73% of patients were deceased, one patient (2%) was undergoing HFNO, 9% of patients were discharged from hospital. HFNO failure occurred in 66% of patients. Clinical signs of respiratory failure before HFNO initiation (respiratory rate >30/min, retractions, and abdominal paradoxical breathing pattern) were associated with mortality (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that HFNO is an option in non-ICU skilled units for older and frail patients with a severe COVID-19 pneumonia, otherwise non-suitable for intensive care and mechanical ventilation. Observation of clinical signs of respiratory failure before HFNO initiation was associated with mortality.

[Ventilatory management of SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure]

COVID-19 pneumonia presents several particularities in its clinical presentation (cytokine storm, silent hypoxemia, thrombo-embolic risk) and may lead to a number of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotypes. While the optimal oxygenation strategy in cases of hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) is still under debate, ventilatory management of COVID-19-related ARF has confirmed the efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy and restored interest in other ventilatory approaches such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation involving a helmet, which due to patient overflow are sometimes implemented outside of critical care units. However, further studies are still needed to determine which patients should be given which oxygenation technique, and under which conditions they require invasive mechanical ventilation, given that delayed initiation potentially burdens prognosis. During invasive mechanical ventilation, ventral decubitus and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have become increasingly prevalent. While innovative therapies such as awake prone position or lung transplantation have likewise been developed, their indications, modalities and efficacy remain to be determined.

Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study

Background and objective Acute hypoxic respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has been treated with oxygen delivered by oxygen masks and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and more recently with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) devices. There is a paucity of randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy of CPAP with HFNC in COVID-19 pneumonia. We conceptualized a randomized control study to compare the efficacy of HFNC and CPAP in reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, estimation of mechanical ventilation-free days, and risk of intubation in COVID-19 patients with hypoxic respiratory failure. Methodology One hundred consecutive patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the trial. The patients were then randomly allocated to receive either CPAP or HFNC with settings as per the study protocol. The patients were deemed to have achieved the study endpoint when they were intubated due to any reason or successfully weaned from NIV to conventional oxygen therapies. The number of patients who required invasive ventilation and the number of invasive ventilation-free days were recorded and analyzed. Results Nineteen (38%) patients in the CPAP group and 30 (60%) patients in the HFNC group required invasive mechanical ventilation and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.1829-0.9129). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation in the CPAP group (median=5 (interquartile range (IQR(=5,6)) was more than in the HFNC group (median=4 (IQR=3,4)) and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.000). The secondary analysis of risk evaluation for intubation done using the Cox regression model showed no significant factors that could have contributed to intubation in the study population. The Kaplan-Meyer curve was used to express the probability of a patient getting intubated and the calculated hazard ratio was 2.29. Conclusion The administration of CPAP significantly reduced the intubation rate and prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation-free period in COVID-19 patients with hypoxic respiratory failure. We also inferred a two-fold increase in the risk of intubation in patients receiving HFNC compared to CPAP.

Mechanical Power Delivered by Noninvasive Ventilation Contributes to Physio-Anatomical and Clinical Responses to Early Versus Late Proning in COVID-19 Pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

To study: 1) the effect of prone position (PP) on noninvasive ventilation (NIV)-delivered mechanical power (MP) and 2) the impact of MP on physio-anatomical and clinical responses to early versus late PP in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia.

DESIGN

Nonrandomized trial with inverse probability of treatment weighted-matched groups.

SETTING

HUMANITAS Gradenigo Sub-ICU.

PATIENTS

One hundred thirty-eight SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia patients with moderate-to-severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (Pa o2 /F io2 ratio < 200 mm Hg) receiving NIV from September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021 (Ethics approval: ISRCTN23016116).

INTERVENTIONS

Early PP or late PP or supine position.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Respiratory parameters were hourly recorded. Time-weighted average MP values were calculated for each ventilatory session. Gas exchange parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) were measured 1 hour after each postural change. Lung ultrasonographic scores and circulating biomarkers were assessed daily. MP delivered during the initial 24 hours of NIV (MP [first 24 hr]) was the primary exposure variable. Primary outcomes: 28-day endotracheal intubation and death. Secondary outcomes: oxygen-response, C o2 -response, ultrasonographic, and systemic inflammatory biomarker responses after 24 hours of NIV. Fifty-eight patients received early PP + NIV, 26 late PP + NIV, and 54 supine NIV. Early PP group had lower 28-day intubation and death than late PP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69 and HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.67, respectively) and supine group. In Cox multivariate analysis, (MP [first 24 hr]) predicted 28-day intubation (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.25-2.09; p = 0.009) and death (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.91; p = 0.007). Compared with supine position, PP was associated with a 35% MP reduction. VR, ultrasonographic scores, and inflammatory biomarkers improved after 24 hours of NIV in the early PP, but not in late PP or supine group. A MP (first 24 hr) greater than or equal to 17.9 J/min was associated with 28-day death (area under the curve, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96; p < 0.001); cumulative hours of MP greater than or equal to 17.9 J/min delivered before PP initiation attenuated VR, ultrasonographic, and biomarker responses to PP.

CONCLUSIONS

MP delivered by NIV during initial 24 hours predicts clinical outcomes. PP curtails MP, but cumulative hours of NIV with MP greater than or equal to 17.9 J/min delivered before PP initiation attenuate the benefits of PP.

High-flow nasal cannula therapy in patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units in a country with limited resources: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to determine the outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who developed hypoxemic respiratory failure necessitating high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy and to identify the predictors of HFNC therapy success.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study involved all patients treated with HFNC therapy at a center for COVID-19 in Viet Nam from August to October 2021.

RESULTS

The study recruited 302 patients. Of these 302 patients, 171 (56.6%) underwent successful HFNC therapy, and the all-cause mortality rate was 33.44%. Non-critical COVID-19 and a higher respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index at 48 hours after initiating HFNC therapy were independently correlated with HFNC therapy success. The statistically significant predictors of HFNC therapy success were younger age, non-critical COVID-19, a higher platelet count when starting HFNC therapy, and a higher ROX index at 24, 36, and 48 hours after HFNC therapy initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC therapy appears to be effective in patients with COVID-19 who develop respiratory failure requiring respiratory support. Non-critical COVID-19 and a higher ROX index measured 48 hours after HFNC therapy initiation might serve as predictive factors for the success of HFNC therapy.

Mechanical power normalized to aerated lung predicts noninvasive ventilation failure and death and contributes to the benefits of proning in COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure

Background

Concern exists that noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may promote ventilation-induced lung injury(VILI) and worsen outcome in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Different individual ventilatory variables have been proposed to predict clinical outcomes, with inconsistent results.Mechanical power (MP), a measure of the energy transfer rate from the ventilator to the respiratory system during mechanical ventilation, might provide solutions for this issue in the framework of predictive, preventive and personalized medicine (PPPM). We explored (1) the impact of ventilator-delivered MP normalized to well-aerated lung (MP_WAL) on physio-anatomical and clinical responses to NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF and (2) the effect of prone position(PP) on MP_WAL.

Methods

We analyzed 216 noninvasively ventilated COVID-19 patients (108 patients receiving PP + NIV and 108 propensity score-matched patients receiving supine NIV) with moderate-to-severe(paO2/FiO2 ratio < 200) AHRF enrolled in the PRO-NIV controlled non-randomized study (ISRCTN23016116).Quantification of differentially aerated lung volumes by lung ultrasonography (LUS) was validated against CT scans. Respiratory parameters were hourly recorded, ABG were performed 1 h after each postural change. Time-weighed average values of ventilatory variables, including MP_WAL, and gas exchange parameters (paO2/FiO2 ratio, dead space indices) were calculated for each ventilatory session. LUS and circulating biomarkers were assessed daily.

Results

Compared with supine position, PP was associated with a 34% MP_WAL reduction, attributable largely to an absolute MP reduction and secondly to an enhanced lung reaeration.Patients receiving a high MP_WAL during the 1^st 24 h of NIV [MP_WAL(day 1)] had higher 28-d NIV failure (HR = 4.33,95%CI:3.09 - 5.98) and death (HR = 5.17,95%CI: 3.01 - 7.35) risks than those receiving a low MP_WAL(day 1).In Cox multivariate analyses, MP_WAL(day 1) remained independently associated with 28-d NIV failure (HR = 1.68,95%CI:1.15-2.41) and death (HR = 1.69,95%CI:1.22-2.32).MP_WAL(day 1) outperformed other power measures and ventilatory variables as predictor of 28-d NIV failure (AUROC = 0.89;95%CI:0.85-0.93) and death (AUROC = 0.89;95%CI:0.85-0.94).MP_WAL(day 1) predicted also gas exchange, ultrasonographic and inflammatory biomarker responses, as markers of VILI, on linear multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

In the framework of PPPM, early bedside MP_WAL calculation may provide added value to predict response to NIV and guide subsequent therapeutic choices i.e. prone position adoption during NIV or upgrading to invasive ventilation, to reduce hazardous MP_WAL delivery, prevent VILI progression and improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19-related AHRF.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13167-023-00325-5.

New and personalized ventilatory strategies in patients with COVID-19

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and may lead to severe respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV). At hospital admission, patients can present with severe hypoxemia and dyspnea requiring increasingly aggressive MV strategies according to the clinical severity: noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), MV, and the use of rescue strategies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Among NRS strategies, new tools have been adopted for critically ill patients, with advantages and disadvantages that need to be further elucidated. Advances in the field of lung imaging have allowed better understanding of the disease, not only the pathophysiology of COVID-19 but also the consequences of ventilatory strategies. In cases of refractory hypoxemia, the use of ECMO has been advocated and knowledge on handling and how to personalize strategies have increased during the pandemic. The aims of the present review are to: (1) discuss the evidence on different devices and strategies under NRS; (2) discuss new and personalized management under MV based on the pathophysiology of COVID-19; and (3) contextualize the use of rescue strategies such as ECMO in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 Driving Force: How It Shaped the Evidence of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) became crucial in treating patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Despite the fear of viral aerosolization, non-invasive respiratory support has gained attention as a way to alleviate ICU overcrowding and reduce the risks associated with intubation. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increased demand for research, resulting in numerous publications on observational studies, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses in the past three years. This comprehensive narrative overview describes the physiological rationale, pre-COVID-19 evidence, and results of observational studies and randomized control trials regarding the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure in adult patients with COVID-19 and associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The review also highlights the significance of guidelines and recommendations provided by international societies and the need for further well-designed research to determine the optimal use of NIRS in treating this population.

The positive impact of COVID-19 on critical care: from unprecedented challenges to transformative changes, from the perspective of young intensivists

Over the past 2 years, SARS-CoV-2 infection has resulted in numerous hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. As young intensivists, we have been at the forefront of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and it has been an intense learning experience affecting all aspects of our specialty. Critical care was put forward as a priority and managed to adapt to the influx of patients and the growing demand for beds, financial and material resources, thereby highlighting its flexibility and central role in the healthcare system. Intensivists assumed an essential and unprecedented role in public life, which was important when claiming for indispensable material and human investments. Physicians and researchers around the world worked hand-in-hand to advance research and better manage this disease by integrating a rapidly growing body of evidence into guidelines. Our daily ethical practices and communication with families were challenged by the massive influx of patients and restricted visitation policies, forcing us to improve our collaboration with other specialties and innovate with new communication channels. However, the picture was not all bright, and some of these achievements are already fading over time despite the ongoing pandemic and hospital crisis. In addition, the pandemic has demonstrated the need to improve the working conditions and well-being of critical care workers to cope with the current shortage of human resources. Despite the gloomy atmosphere, we remain optimistic. In this ten-key points review, we outline our vision on how to capitalize on the lasting impact of the pandemic to face future challenges and foster transformative changes of critical care for the better.

High-flow nasal cannula reduces intubation rate in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on intubation rate, 28-day intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs) and ICU length of stay (ICU LOS) in adult patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) associated with COVID-19.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase up to June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Only randomised controlled trials or cohort studies comparing HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19 were included up to June 2022. Studies conducted on children or pregnant women, and those not published in English were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts. Relevant information was extracted and curated in the tables. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials or cohort studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan V.5.4 computer software using a random effects model with a 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test (χ²) and Higgins I² statistics, with subgroup analyses to account for sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 3370 (1480 received HFNC) were included. HFNC reduced the intubation rate compared with COT (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, p=0.0007), decreased 28-day ICU mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97, p=0.04) and improved 28-day VFDs (mean difference (MD) 2.58, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.45, p<0.00001). However, HFNC had no effect on ICU LOS versus COT (MD 0.52, 95% CI -1.01 to 2.06, p=0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that HFNC may reduce intubation rate and 28-day ICU mortality, and improve 28-day VFDs in patients with ARF due to COVID-19 compared with COT. Large-scale randomised controlled trials are necessary to validate our findings.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022345713.

Effect of Ward-Based High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) Oxygen Therapy on Critical Care Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospitals expanded critical care capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic by treating COVID-19 patients with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in non-traditional settings, including general internal medicine (GIM) wards. The impact of this practice on intensive care unit (ICU) capacity is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe how our hospital operationalized the use of HFNC on GIM wards, assess its impact on ICU capacity, and examine the characteristics and outcomes of treated patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of all patients treated with HFNC on GIM wards at a Canadian tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients admitted with COVID-19 and treated with HFNC on GIM wards from December 28, 2020, to June 13, 2021, were included.

MAIN MEASURES

We combined administrative data on critical care occupancy daily with chart-abstracted data for included patients to establish the total number of patients receiving ICU-level care at our hospital per day. We also collected data on demographics, medical comorbidities, illness severity, COVID-19 treatments, HFNC care processes, and patient outcomes.

KEY RESULTS

We treated 124 patients with HFNC on the GIM wards (median age 66 years; 48% female). Patients were treated with HFNC for a median of 5 days (IQR 3 to 8); collectively, they received HFNC for a total of 740 hospital days, 71% of which were on GIM wards. At peak ICU capacity strain (144%), delivering HFNC on GIM wards added 20% to overall ICU capacity by managing up to 14 patients per day. Patients required a median maximal fraction of inspired oxygen of 80% (IQR 60 to 95). There were 18 deaths (15%) and 85 patients (69%) required critical care admission; of those, 40 (47%) required mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate training and resources, treatment of COVID-19 patients with HFNC on GIM wards appears to be a feasible strategy to increase critical care capacity.

Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy on clinical outcomes in adults with COVID-19: A systematic review

Introduction/Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has high transmissibility and mortality rates. High-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) might reduce the need for orotracheal intubation, easing the burden on the health system caused by COVID-19. The objective of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of HFNC in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, the present study explores the effects of HFNC on rates of mortality, intubation and intensive care units (ICU) length of stay. The present study also seeks to define predictors of success and failure of HFNC.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS databases, and the study was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Study Quality Assessment Tools.

Results

The search identified 1,476 unique titles; 95 articles received full-text reviews and 40 studies were included in this review. HFNC was associated with a reduction in the rate of orotracheal intubation, notably when compared to conventional oxygen therapy. Studies reported inconsistency in whether HFNC reduced ICU length of stay or mortality rates. Among the predictors of HFNC failure/success, a ratio of oxygen saturation index of approximately 5 or more was associated with HFNC success.

Conclusion

In adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, HFNC may prove effective in reducing the rate of orotracheal intubation. The ratio of the oxygen saturation index was the parameter most examined as a predictor of HFNC success. Low-level research designs, inherent study weaknesses and inconsistent findings made it impossible to conclude whether HFNC reduces ICU length of stay or mortality. Future studies should employ higher level research designs.

Trends in clinical characteristics and outcomes of all critically ill COVID-19 adult patients hospitalized in France between March 2020 and June 2021: a national database study

INTRODUCTION

Studies regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were mainly performed in the initial wave, but some small-scale data points to prognostic differences for patients in successive waves. We therefore aimed to study the impact of time on prognosis of ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients.

METHOD

We performed a national retrospective cohort study, including all adult patients hospitalized in French ICUs from March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021, and identified three surge periods. Primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, respectively.

RESULTS

105,979 critically ill ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients were allocated to the relevant three surge periods. In-hospital mortality for surges 1, 2, and 3 was, respectively, 24%, 27%, and 24%. Invasive mechanical ventilation was the highest level of respiratory support for 42%, 32%, and 31% (p < 0.001) over the whole period, with a decline in the use of vasopressors over time. Adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and modified Simplified Acute Physiology Score II at ICU admission, time period was associated with less invasive mechanical ventilation and a high risk of in-hospital death. Vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a lower likelihood of invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [aSHR] = 0.64 [0.53-0.76]) and intra-hospital death (aSHR = 0.80, [0.68-0.95]).

CONCLUSION

In this large database of ICU patients admitted for COVID-19, we observed a decline in invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and RRT use over time but a high risk of in-hospital death. Vaccination was identified as protective against the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and in-hospital death.

Comparison of high-flow nasal therapy, noninvasive ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure on outcomes in critically ill patients admitted for COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

The optimal first-line noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) to improve outcome in patients affected by COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU is still debated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study in seven French ICUs, including all adults admitted between July and December 2020 with documented SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2<300 mmHg), and treated with either high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) alone, noninvasive ventilation alone or in combination with HFNT (NIV), or continuous positive airway pressure alone or in combination with HFNT (CPAP). The primary outcome was NIRS failure at day 28, defined as the need for endotracheal intubation (ETI) or death without ETI.

RESULTS

Among the 355 patients included, 160 (45%) were treated with HFNT alone, 115 (32%) with NIV and 80 (23%) with CPAP. The primary outcome occurred in 65 (41%), 69 (60%), and 25 (31%) patients among those treated with HFNT alone, NIV, and CPAP, respectively (P<0.001). After univariate analysis, patients treated with CPAP had a trend for a lower incidence of the primary outcome, whereas patients treated with NIV had a significant higher incidence of the primary outcome, both compared to those treated with HFNT alone (unadjusted Hazard ratio 0.67; 95% CI [0.42-1.06], and 1.58; 95% CI [1.12-2.22]; P=0.09 and 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Among ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 pneumonia and managed with NIRS, the outcome seems to differ according to the initial chosen strategy. Prospective randomized controlled studies are warranted to identify the optimal strategy.

Outcomes in Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Secondary to COVID-19 Treated with Noninvasive Respiratory Support versus Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

Purpose

The goal of this study was to compare noninvasive respiratory support to invasive mechanical ventilation as the initial respiratory support in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Methods

All patients admitted to a large healthcare network with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and requiring respiratory support were eligible for inclusion. We compared patients treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive positive pressure ventilation by facemask or high flow nasal oxygen) with patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included unweighted and weighted assessments of mortality, lengths-of-stay (intensive care unit and hospital) and time-to-intubation.

Results

Over the study period, 2354 patients met inclusion criteria. Nearly half (47%) received invasive mechanical ventilation first and 53% received initial noninvasive respiratory support. There was an overall 38% in-hospital mortality (37% for invasive mechanical ventilation and 39% for noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was associated with an increased hazard of death compared to initial invasive mechanical ventilation (HR: 1.61, p < 0.0001, 95% CI: 1.33 - 1.94). However, patients on initial noninvasive respiratory support also experienced an increased hazard of leaving the hospital sooner, but the hazard ratio waned with time (HR: 0.97, p < 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.96 - 0.98).

Conclusion

These data show that the COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure initially treated with noninvasive respiratory support had an increased hazard of in-hospital death.

Lessons learned in mechanical ventilation/oxygen support in COVID19

The clinical spectrum of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection ranges from asymptomatic infection or mild respiratory symptoms to pneumonia, with severe cases leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome with multiorgan involvement. The clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) changed over the course of the pandemic, being adjusted as more evidence became available. This article will review how the ventilatory management of COVID-19 ARDS evolved and will conclude with current evidence-based recommendations.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs Usual Respiratory Support on Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The HELMET-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.

Spontaneous breathing promotes lung injury in an experimental model of alveolar collapse

Vigorous spontaneous breathing has emerged as a promotor of lung damage in acute lung injury, an entity known as “patient self-inflicted lung injury”. Mechanical ventilation may prevent this second injury by decreasing intrathoracic pressure swings and improving regional air distribution. Therefore, we aimed to determine the effects of spontaneous breathing during the early stage of acute respiratory failure on lung injury and determine whether early and late controlled mechanical ventilation may avoid or revert these harmful effects. A model of partial surfactant depletion and lung collapse was induced in eighteen intubated pigs of 32 ±4 kg. Then, animals were randomized to (1) SB‐group: spontaneous breathing with very low levels of pressure support for the whole experiment (eight hours), (2) Early MV-group: controlled mechanical ventilation for eight hours, or (3) Late MV-group: first half of the experiment on spontaneous breathing (four hours) and the second half on controlled mechanical ventilation (four hours). Respiratory, hemodynamic, and electric impedance tomography data were collected. After the protocol, animals were euthanized, and lungs were extracted for histologic tissue analysis and cytokines quantification. SB-group presented larger esophageal pressure swings, progressive hypoxemia, lung injury, and more dorsal and inhomogeneous ventilation compared to the early MV-group. In the late MV-group switch to controlled mechanical ventilation improved the lung inhomogeneity and esophageal pressure swings but failed to prevent hypoxemia and lung injury. In a lung collapse model, spontaneous breathing is associated to large esophageal pressure swings and lung inhomogeneity, resulting in progressive hypoxemia and lung injury. Mechanical ventilation prevents these mechanisms of patient self-inflicted lung injury if applied early, before spontaneous breathing occurs, but not when applied late.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Standard Oxygen in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The evidence regarding benefits of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19 is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of HFNC in comparison with standard oxygen therapy on the frequency of endotracheal intubation at 28 d in subjects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

A retrospective, age- and sex-matched-paired, cohort study was conducted in subjects with moderate-to-severe AHRF. Intervention group was treated with HFNC, and control group was treated with standard oxygen therapy. Baseline characteristics and clinical evolution were analyzed. Mantel-Haenszel test was used for categorical variables. Paired samples Wilcoxon test was used for quantitative variables. Multivariate analysis was performed using conditional multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Eighty-four subjects were included. The median time from admission to progression of oxygen therapy to FIO2 ≥ 0.5 or HFNC was 1 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-3) d. PaO2 /FIO2 at the time of oxygen therapy progression showed a median of 150.5 (IQR 100.0-170.0) for the entire sample and was lower in HFNC group compared with control group (median 135 [IQR 96-162] vs median 158 [IQR 132-174], respectively, P = .02). Endotracheal intubation at 28 d was observed in 54.8% HFNC and 73.8% standard oxygen (unadjusted odds ratio 0.38 [95% CI 0.13-1.07], P = .069). In the multivariate analysis, presence of dyspnea at hospital admission, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and PaO2 /FIO2 at time of progression of oxygen therapy to FIO2 ≥ 0.5 was identified as confounding factors for the association between the intervention group and the outcome. Use of HFNC was not an independent predictor of endotracheal intubation frequency after adjusting confounders (odds ratio 0.26 [95% CI 0.04-1.51], P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, HFNC therapy in subjects with AHRF secondary to COVID-19 was not an independent predictor of endotracheal intubation, compared with standard oxygen therapy, after adjusting for confounders.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies in coronavirus disease 2019: A literature review

The impact on mortality associated with covid-19 today exceeds five million deaths worldwide, and the number of deaths continues to rise. The complications of the survivors, socio-economic implications at a global level, economic limitations in the health systems, and physical and emotional exhaustion of health personnel are detrimental. Therapeutic strategies are required to limit the evolution of the disease, improve the prognosis of critically ill patients, and, in countries with low purchasing power, create affordable alternatives that can help contain the evolution towards the severity of infected people with mild to moderate symptoms. The misinformation and myths that today are more frequent on social networks and the implementation of practices without scientific support is a problem that aggravates the general panorama. This review aims to concentrate on the best evidence for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in a simple and summarized manner, addressing therapies from their bases to the most innovative alternatives available today.

•

The pathophysiological bases of classic ADRS differ significantly from those related to ARDS due to COVID-19.

•

The therapeutic objective based on the pathophysiological aspects could improve the clinical evolution of the affected patients.

•

The objectives set for oxygen saturation should be reconsidered since oxygen in high concentrations could have deleterious effects, especially in this patient population.

•

Extracorporeal membrane circulation should not be left aside, and early implementation could save many lives in well-selected patients.

High parasternal intercostal muscle thickening prior to intubation in COVID-19 infection

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a major complication of COVID-19 pneumonia and parasternal intercostal muscle thickening may be used as a biomarker to assess inspiratory effort. We report the case of a high utilization of parasternal intercostal muscle prior to the introduction of invasive ventilation in a 66-year old male none vaccinated COVID -19 patient admitted in hospital because of AHRF.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are important treatment approaches for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the differential impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the effects of HFNC versus NIV (interface or mode) on clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) of HFNC and NIV in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF published in English before February 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the mortality rate, and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation [ventilator-free day (VFD)].

RESULTS

In all, 23 studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 5354 patients were included. The mortality rate was higher in the NIV group than the HFNC group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.84, p = 0.0008, I2 = 60%]; however, in this subgroup, no significant difference in mortality was observed in the NIV-helmet group (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.63-2.32, p = 0.57, I2 = 0%) or NIV-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) group (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.51-1.17, p = 0.23, I2 = 65%) relative to the HFNC group. There were no differences in intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or days free from invasive mechanical ventilation (VFD) between the HFNC and NIV groups.

CONCLUSION

Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of helmet or CPAP group. Future large sample RCTs are necessary to prove our findings.

REGISTRATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022321997).

Use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen and risk factors for high-flow nasal cannula oxygen failure in critically-ill patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) may be an attractive first-line ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients. However, HNFC use for the management of COVID-19 patients and risk factors for HFNC failure remain to be determined.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we included all consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first (Mars-May 2020) and second (August 2020- February 202) French pandemic waves. Patients with limitations for intubation were excluded. HFNC failure was defined as the need for intubation after ICU admission. The impact of HFNC use was analyzed in the whole cohort and after constructing a propensity score. Risk factors for HNFC failure were identified through a landmark time-dependent cause-specific Cox model. The ability of the 6-h ROX index to detect HFNC failure was assessed by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

RESULTS

200 patients were included: HFNC was used in 114(57%) patients, non-invasive ventilation in 25(12%) patients and 145(72%) patients were intubated with a median delay of 0 (0-2) days after ICU admission. Overall, 78(68%) patients had HFNC failure. Patients with HFNC failure had a higher ICU mortality rate (34 vs. 11%, p = 0.02) than those without. At landmark time of 48 and 72 h, SAPS-2 score, extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75% and HFNC duration (cause specific hazard ratio (CSH) = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04-0.28), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 48 h and CSH = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02-0.23), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 72 h) were associated with HFNC failure. The 6-h ROX index was lower in patients with HFNC failure but could not reliably predicted HFNC failure with an area under ROC curve of 0.65 (95% CI(0.52-0.78), p = 0.02). In the matched cohort, HFNC use was associated with a lower risk of intubation (CSH = 0.32, 95% CI (0.19-0.57), p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically-ill COVID-19 patients, while HFNC use as first-line ventilatory support was associated with a lower risk of intubation, more than half of patients had HFNC failure. Risk factors for HFNC failure were SAPS-2 score and extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75%. The risk of HFNC failure could not be predicted by the 6-h ROX index but decreased after a 48-h HFNC duration.