High flow oxygen therapy in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gonzalez-Castro A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7816877 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8616732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of high flow nasal canula oxygen therapy (HFNO) to prevent invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is not well established in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to compare the risk of IMV between two strategies of oxygenation (conventional oxygenation and HFNO) in critically ill COVID 19 patients.MethodsThis was a bicenter retrospective study which took place in two intensive care units (ICU) of tertiary hospitals in the Paris region from March 11, to May 3, 2020. We enrolled consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure (ARF) who did not receive IMV at ICU admission. The primary outcome was the rate of IMV after ICU admission. Secondary outcomes were death at day 28 and day 60, length of ICU stay and ventilator-free days at day 28. Data from the HFNO group were compared with those from the standard oxygen therapy (SOT) group using weighted propensity score.ResultsAmong 138 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 62 (45%) were treated with SOT alone, and 76 (55%) with HFNO. In HFNO group, 39/76 (51%) patients received IMV and 46/62 (74%) in SOT group (OR 0.37 [95% CI, 0.18-0.76] p?=?0.007). After weighted propensity score, HFNO was still associated with a lower rate of IMV (OR 0.31 [95% CI, 0.14-0.66] p?=?0.002). Length of ICU stay and mortality at day 28 and day 60 did not significantly differ between HFNO and SOT groups after weighted propensity score. Ventilator-free days at days 28 was higher in HNFO group (21 days vs 10 days, p?=?0.005). In the HFNO group, predictive factors associated with IMV were SAPS2 score (OR 1.13 [95%CI, 1.06-1.20] p?=?0.0002) and ROX index?>?4.88 (OR 0.23 [95%CI, 0.008-0.64] p?=?0.006).ConclusionsHigh flow nasal canula oxygen for ARF due to COVID-19 is associated with a lower rate of invasive mechanical ventilation.
| S-EPMC7910764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe life-saving role of oxygen therapy in African children with severe pneumonia is not yet established.MethodsThe open-label fractional-factorial COAST trial randomised eligible Ugandan and Kenyan children aged > 28 days with severe pneumonia and severe hypoxaemia stratum (SpO2 < 80%) to high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) or low-flow oxygen (LFO: standard care) and hypoxaemia stratum (SpO2 80-91%) to HFNT or LFO (liberal strategies) or permissive hypoxaemia (ratio 1:1:2). Children with cyanotic heart disease, chronic lung disease or > 3 h receipt of oxygen were excluded. The primary endpoint was 48 h mortality; secondary endpoints included mortality or neurocognitive sequelae at 28 days.ResultsThe trial was stopped early after enrolling 1852/4200 children, including 388 in the severe hypoxaemia stratum (median 7 months; median SpO2 75%) randomised to HFNT (n = 194) or LFO (n = 194) and 1454 in the hypoxaemia stratum (median 9 months; median SpO2 88%) randomised to HFNT (n = 363) vs LFO (n = 364) vs permissive hypoxaemia (n = 727). Per-protocol 15% of patients in the permissive hypoxaemia group received oxygen (when SpO2 < 80%). In the severe hypoxaemia stratum, 48-h mortality was 9.3% for HFNT vs. 13.4% for LFO groups. In the hypoxaemia stratum, 48-h mortality was 1.1% for HFNT vs. 2.5% LFO and 1.4% for permissive hypoxaemia. In the hypoxaemia stratum, adjusted odds ratio for 48-h mortality in liberal vs permissive comparison was 1.16 (0.49-2.74; p = 0.73); HFNT vs LFO comparison was 0.60 (0.33-1.06; p = 0.08). Strata-specific 28 day mortality rates were, respectively: 18.6, 23.4 and 3.3, 4.1, 3.9%. Neurocognitive sequelae were rare.ConclusionsRespiratory support with HFNT showing potential benefit should prompt further trials.
| S-EPMC8098782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The worldwide spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. According to clinical studies carried out in China and Italy, most patients experience mild or moderate symptoms; about a fifth of subjects develop a severe and critical disease, and may suffer from interstitial pneumonia, possibly associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and death.In patients who develop respiratory failure, timely conventional oxygen therapy through nasal catheter plays a crucial role, but it can be used only in mild forms. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) support or non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) are uncomfortable, and require significant man-machine cooperation. Herein we describe our experience of five patients with COVID-19, who were treated with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) after failure of CPAP or NIV, and discuss the role of HFNC in COVID-19 patients. Our findings suggest that HFNC can be used successfully in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
| S-EPMC7580191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCorona virus disease (Covid-19) affects the airways and induces pulmonary lesions, patients with this disease require oxygen therapy as the disease progresses. Several oxygenation options have been used, l'HFNO had showed beneficial effects.The objective of this studyTo evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen HFNO versus non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19.MethodsThis is a retrospective and comparative study conducted over a period of 10 months from March 2020 to December 2020 and involving 600 patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit of the CHU Mohammed VI of Oujda for the management of acute respiratory failure caused by COVID-19.ResultsOut of 600 patients with acute respiratory failure, 265 patients were included in the analyses. 162 (61.10%) patients were treated with HFNO, the intubation rate was 49.7% (80 patients out of 162) of which 63 died intubated (78.8%). Concerning the 82 non-intubated patients, only 16 died (19.8%).The total number of patients who received NIV was 71 (26.8%), 33 (46.5%) required mechanical ventilation. In-hospital mortality in patients treated with NIV was 100%.The difference in mortality outcome between the two groups was significantly (P < 0.0001) reduced in HFNO.ConclusionsTreatment with high-flow oxygen improved survival in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure compared with noninvasive ventilation, although no difference was observed in intubation rate.
| S-EPMC8724016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo report a French experience in patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) requiring high fractional concentration of inspired oxygen supported by high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as first-line therapy.MethodsRetrospective cohort study conducted in two ICUs of a French university hospital. All consecutive patients admitted during 28-days after the first admission for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were screened. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, specific therapeutics, ICU length-of-stay and survival data were collected.ResultsData of 43 patients were analyzed: mainly men (72%), median age 61 (51-69) years, median body mass index of 28 (25-31) kg/m2, median simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) of 29 (22-37) and median PaO2/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (P/F) ratio of 146 (100-189) mmHg. HFNC was initiated at ICU admission in 76% of patients. Median flow was 50 (45-50) L/min and median FiO2 was 0.6 (0.5-0.8). 79% of patients presented at least one comorbidity, mainly hypertension (58%). At day (D) 28, 32% of patients required invasive mechanical ventilation, 3 patients died in ICU. Risk factors for intubation were diabetes (10% vs. 43%, P=0.04) and extensive lesions on chest computed tomography (CT) (P=0.023). Patients with more than 25% of lesions on chest CT were more frequently intubated during ICU stay (P=0.012). At ICU admission (D1), patients with higher SAPS II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (respectively 39 (28-50) vs. 27 (22-31), P=0.0031 and 5 (2-8) vs. 2 (2-2.2), P=0.0019), and a lower P/F ratio (98 (63-109) vs. 178 (126-206), P=0.0005) were more frequently intubated. Among non-intubated patients, the median lowest P/F was 131 (85-180) mmHg. Four caregivers had to stop working following coronavirus 2 contamination, but did not require hospitalization.ConclusionOur clinical experience supports the use of HFNC as first line-therapy in patients with SARS-COV-2 pneumonia for whom face mask oxygen does not provide adequate respiratory support.
| S-EPMC8175099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy comprises an air/oxygen blender, an active humidifier, a single heated circuit, and a nasal cannula. It delivers adequately heated and humidified medical gas at up to 60 L/min of flow and is considered to have a number of physiological effects: reduction of anatomical dead space, PEEP effect, constant fraction of inspired oxygen, and good humidification. While there have been no big randomized clinical trials, it has been gaining attention as an innovative respiratory support for critically ill patients. Most of the available data has been published in the neonatal field. Evidence with critically ill adults are poor; however, physicians apply it to a variety of patients with diverse underlying diseases: hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post-extubation, pre-intubation oxygenation, sleep apnea, acute heart failure, patients with do-not-intubate order, and so on. Many published reports suggest that HFNC decreases breathing frequency and work of breathing and reduces needs of escalation of respiratory support in patients with diverse underlying diseases. Some important issues remain to be resolved, such as its indication, timing of starting and stopping HFNC, and escalating treatment. Despite these issues, HFNC oxygen therapy is an innovative and effective modality for the early treatment of adults with respiratory failure with diverse underlying diseases.
| S-EPMC4393594 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe effect of immunomodulatory therapy with tocilizumab for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in real-life clinical practice remains controversial.MethodsSingle-center retrospective matched cohort analysis including 47 consecutive patients treated with intravenous tocilizumab for severe COVID-19 pneumonia ("TCZ group"), matched by age, comorbidities, time from symptoms onset and baseline SpO2/FiO2 ratio with 47 patients receiving standard of care alone ("SoC group").ResultsThere were no significant differences between the TCZ and SoC groups in the rate of clinical improvement (hospital discharge and/or a decrease of ≥2 points on a six-point ordinal scale) by day 7 (51.1% [24/47] versus 48.9% [23/47]; P-value=1.000). No differences were observed at day 14 in terms of clinical improvement (72.3% versus 76.6%; P-value=0.791), all-cause mortality (10.6% versus 12.8%; P-value=1.000), and the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation and/or death (25.5% versus 23.4%; P-value=1.000) either. Patients in the TCZ group had a more rapid normalization of C-reactive protein levels.ConclusionsNo apparent benefit was observed in patients with severe COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab as compared to a matched retrospective cohort.
| S-EPMC8260823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:SARS-Cov2 infection may trigger lung inflammation and acute-respiratory-distress-syndrome (ARDS) that requires active ventilation and may have fatal outcome. Considering the severity of the disease and the lack of active treatments, 14 patients with Covid-19 and severe lung inflammation received inhaled adenosine in the attempt to therapeutically compensate for the oxygen-related loss of the endogenous adenosine?A2A adenosine receptor (A2AR)-mediated mitigation of the lung-destructing inflammatory damage. This off label-treatment was based on preclinical studies in mice with LPS-induced ARDS, where inhaled adenosine/A2AR agonists protected oxygenated lungs from the deadly inflammatory damage. The treatment was allowed, considering that adenosine has several clinical applications. PATIENTS AND TREATMENT:Fourteen consecutively enrolled patients with Covid19-related interstitial pneumonitis and PaO2/FiO2 ratio<300 received off-label-treatment with 9 mg inhaled adenosine every 12 hours in the first 24 hours and subsequently, every 24 days for the next 4 days. Fifty-two patients with analogue features and hospitalized between February and April 2020, who did not receive adenosine, were considered as a historical control group. Patients monitoring also included hemodynamic/hematochemical studies, CTscans, and SARS-CoV2-tests. RESULTS:The treatment was well tolerated with no hemodynamic change and one case of moderate bronchospasm. A significant increase (> 30%) in the PaO2/FiO2-ratio was reported in 13 out of 14 patients treated with adenosine compared with that observed in 7 out of52 patients in the control within 15 days. Additionally, we recorded a mean PaO2/FiO2-ratio increase (215 ± 45 vs. 464 ± 136, P = 0.0002) in patients receiving adenosine and no change in the control group (210±75 vs. 250±85 at 120 hours, P>0.05). A radiological response was demonstrated in 7 patients who received adenosine, while SARS-CoV-2 RNA load rapidly decreased in 13 cases within 7 days while no changes were recorded in the control group within 15 days. There was one Covid-19 related death in the experimental group and 11in the control group. CONCLUSION:Our short-term analysis suggests the overall safety and beneficial therapeutic effect of inhaled adenosine in patients with Covid-19-inflammatory lung disease suggesting further investigation in controlled clinical trials.
| S-EPMC7544127 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST379 | biostudies-other