Dataset Information

High-flow nasal oxygen in patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Whether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in adult patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure improves clinically relevant outcomes remains unclear. We thus sought to assess the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on ventilator-free days, compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation, on adult patients with COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre cohort study using a prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs). Main exposure was the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (conservative group), while early invasive mechanical ventilation (within the first day of ICU admission; early intubation group) served as the comparator. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at 28 days. ICU length of stay and all-cause in-hospital mortality served as secondary outcomes. We used propensity score matching to adjust for measured confounding.

Results

Out of 468 eligible patients, a total of 122 matched patients were included in the present analysis (61 for each group). When compared to early intubation, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen was associated with an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference: 8.0 days; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.4 to 11.7 days) and a reduction in ICU length of stay (mean difference: - 8.2 days; 95% CI - 12.7 to - 3.6 days). No difference was observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality between groups (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.64).

Conclusions

The use of high-flow nasal oxygen upon ICU admission in adult patients with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure may lead to an increase in ventilator-free days and a reduction in ICU length of stay, when compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Future studies should confirm our findings.

SUBMITTER: Mellado-Artigas R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7876530 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is increasing. However, evidence to support widespread use of HFNO compared with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) is unclear. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic evidence review regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalised with ARF or who developed ARF while hospitalised. ARF will be defined as SpO2 <90%, PaO2:FiO2 ratio ?300, PaO2 ?60?mm Hg, or PaCO2 ?45?mm Hg. The intervention is HFNO (humidified oxygen, flow rate ?20?L/min) compared separately to NIV or COT. The critical outcomes are: all-cause mortality, hospital-acquired pneumonia, intubation/reintubation (days of intubation), intensive care unit admission/transfers, patient comfort and hospital length of stay. The important outcomes are: delirium, 30-day hospital readmissions, barotrauma, compromised nutrition (enteral or parenteral nutrition), gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge and skin breakdown or pressure ulcers. We will calculate risk ratios and Peto ORs (for rare events) and corresponding 95% CIs for categorical outcomes. Mean and standardised mean difference will be calculated for continuous outcomes. Where possible and appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome. CONCLUSION:This systematic review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients to inform clinical practice and to identify research gaps in the management of ARF in hospitalised adults. The results will inform the work of the American College of Physicians-Clinical Guidelines Committee in their development of a clinical guideline related to use of HFNO in adult patients with ARF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical approval will be needed because we will be using data from previously published studies in which informed consent was obtained by the primary investigators. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019146691.

Project description:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae (HFNC) compared to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and/or standard oxygen in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure.We reviewed randomized controlled trials from CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to February 2016), conference proceedings, and relevant article reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted trial-level data from trials investigating HFNC in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed in duplicate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included dyspnea, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, PaCO2, and pH. Safety outcomes included respiratory arrest, intubation, delirium, and skin breakdown.From 2023 screened citations, we identified seven trials (1771 patients) meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. There was no evidence for a mortality difference in patients receiving HFNC vs. NIV and/or standard oxygen (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48, I 2?=?63%, five trials, 1629 patients). In subgroup analyses of HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen individually, mortality differences were not observed. Measures of patient tolerability were heterogeneous. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio at 6-12 h was significantly lower in patients receiving oxygen via HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen for hypoxemic respiratory failure (MD -?53.34, 95% CI -?71.95 to -?34.72, I 2?=?61%, 1143 patients). There were no differences in pH, PaCO2, or rates of intubation or cardio-respiratory arrest. Delirium and skin breakdown were infrequently reported in included trials.In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure HFNC was not associated with a difference in mortality compared to NIV or standard oxygen. Secondary outcomes including dyspnea, tolerance, and safety were not systematically reported. Residual heterogeneity and variable reporting of secondary outcomes limit the conclusions that can be made in this review. Prospective trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are required.

Project description:ObjectivesAn ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.DesignA multicenter, retrospective cohort study.SettingThree tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China.PatientsForty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsMean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.ConclusionsHigh-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.