Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine combined with high flow nasal oxygen and long periods of awake prone positioning in moderate or severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Taboada M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8011721 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7251246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone.MethodsProspective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP.ResultsA total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53-1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0-2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0-3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40-2.72), p = 0.92].ConclusionIn patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.
| S-EPMC7537953 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7366175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The awake prone position (AP) strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a safe, simple, and cost-effective technique used to improve hypoxemia. We aimed to evaluate intubation and mortality risk in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who underwent AP during hospitalisation.In this retrospective, multicentre observational study conducted between May 1 and June 12, 2020 in 27 hospitals in Mexico and Ecuador, non-intubated patients with COVID-19 managed with AP or supine positioning were included to evaluate intubation and mortality risk through logistic regression models; multivariable and centre adjustment, propensity score analyses, and E-values were calculated to limit confounding. This study was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04407468827 non-intubated patients with COVID-19 in the AP (n=505) and supine (n=322) groups were included for analysis. Less patients in the AP group required endotracheal intubation (23.6% versus 40.4%) or died (20% versus 37.9%). AP was a protective factor for intubation even after multivariable adjustment (OR=0.39, 95%CI: 0.28-0.56, p<0.0001, E-value=2.01), which prevailed after propensity score analysis (OR=0.32, 95%CI: 0.21-0.49, p<0.0001, E-value=2.21), and mortality (adjusted OR=0.38, 95%CI: 0.25-0.57, p<0.0001, E-value=1.98). The main variables associated with intubation amongst AP patients were increasing age, lower baseline SpO2/FiO2, and management with a non-rebreather mask.AP in hospitalised non-intubated patients with COVID-19 is associated with a lower risk of intubation and mortality.
| S-EPMC8576803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (ARF), awake prone positioning (AW-PP) reduces the need for intubation in patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, the effects of different exposure times on clinical outcomes remain unclear. We evaluated the effect of AW-PP on the risk of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19-related ARF treated with HFNO and analyzed the effects of different exposure times to AW-PP.MethodsThis multicenter prospective cohort study in six ICUs of 6 centers in Argentine consecutively included patients > 18 years of age with confirmed COVID-19-related ARF requiring HFNO from June 2020 to January 2021. In the primary analysis, the main exposure was awake prone positioning for at least 6 h/day, compared to non-prone positioning (NON-PP). In the sensitivity analysis, exposure was based on the number of hours receiving AW-PP. Inverse probability weighting-propensity score (IPW-PS) was used to adjust the conditional probability of treatment assignment. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI); and the secondary outcome was hospital mortality.ResultsDuring the study period, 580 patients were screened and 335 were included; 187 (56%) tolerated AW-PP for [median (p25-75)] 12 (9-16) h/day and 148 (44%) served as controls. The IPW-propensity analysis showed standardized differences < 0.1 in all the variables assessed. After adjusting for other confounders, the OR (95% CI) for ETI in the AW-PP group was 0.36 (0.2-0.7), with a progressive reduction in OR as the exposure to AW-PP increased. The adjusted OR (95% CI) for hospital mortality in the AW-PP group ≥ 6 h/day was 0.47 (0.19-1.31). The exposure to prone positioning ≥ 8 h/d resulted in a further reduction in OR [0.37 (0.17-0.8)].ConclusionIn the study population, AW-PP for ≥ 6 h/day reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation, and exposure ≥ 8 h/d reduced the risk of hospital mortality.
| S-EPMC8740872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence exists for the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in the general critical care population for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. There is discord between guidelines for hypoxemia management in COVID-19. Both noninvasive management and intubation present risk to patients and staff and potentially overwhelm hospital mechanical ventilator capacity. The use of HFNO has been particularly controversial in the UK, with oxygen infrastructure failure. We discuss our experience of managing COVID-19 with HFNO and awake self-prone positioning. We focus upon the less-usual case of an eighteen-year-old female to illustrate the type of patient where HFNO may be used when perhaps earlier intubation once was. It is important to consider the wider implications of intubation. We have used HFNO as a bridge to intubation or as definitive management. As we await clinical trial evidence, HFNO with self-prone positioning has a role in COVID-19 for certain patients. Response parameters must be set and reviewed, oxygen infrastructure considered, and potential staff droplet exposure minimised.
| S-EPMC8142809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Emergency departments are facing an unprecedented challenge in dealing with patients who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The massive number of cases evolving to respiratory failure are leading to a rapid depletion of medical resources such as respiratory support equipment, which is more critical in low- and middle-income countries. In this context, any therapeutic and oxygenation support strategy that conserves medical resources should be welcomed. Prone positioning is a well-known ventilatory support strategy to improve oxygenation levels. Self-proning can be used in the management of selected patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Here, we describe our experience with two COVID-19-positive patients who were admitted with respiratory failure. The patients were successfully managed with self-proning and noninvasive oxygenation without the need for intubation.
| S-EPMC7236748 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7290555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Oxygen supplementation is crucial for awake tracheal intubation (ATI) using a flexible bronchoscope in patients with an anticipated difficult airway. However, the modality of optimal oxygen delivery remains unclear. This retrospective study compared high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and conventional low-flow oxygen supply during ATI. We applied inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to account for biases due to clinical characteristic differences between the groups. The primary endpoint was the lowest oxygen saturation during ATI. The secondary endpoints were incidence of desaturation, multiple attempts, failure rate, and procedural duration. After IPTW adjustment, the lowest oxygen saturation in the HFNO group during ATI was significantly higher than that in the conventional oxygenation group (99.3 ± 0.2 vs. 97.5 ± 0.5, P < 0.001). Moreover, the HFNO group had fewer cases with multiple attempts than the conventional oxygenation group (3% vs. 16%, P = 0.007). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of desaturation, failure and procedural duration. Our findings suggest that HFNO was associated with improved lowest oxygen saturation and a lower rate of multiple attempts during ATI. Therefore, we recommend using HFNO for safer oxygen delivery and improved quality of procedure during ATI.
| S-EPMC9253013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can result in Coronavirus Disease–19 (COVID-19) [1, 2]. While the majority of patients are asymptomatic or have mild disease [3], approximately 14% develop more severe disease including hypoxemic respiratory failure and/or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) [3]. Prone positioning is a life-saving intervention for mechanically ventilated patients with moderate-severe ARDS [4]. Based on this, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend these patients be considered for a trial of prone positioning [5]. Recently the use of prone positioning in awake non-intubated COVID-19 patients has been recommended by several notable organizations with the goal of preventing intubation and potentially improving patient-oriented outcomes [6, 7]. In contrast to prone positioning for intubated mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS, there have been no randomized control trials examining the role of awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. To further explore this question we used rapid review methodology (Tricco et al., 2015 [8]) to quickly identify and synthesize studies examining the effect of awake prone positioning on patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure (including those with ARDS and/or COVID-19). Methods We have elected to use “rapid review” methodology rather than “systematic review” methodology primarily due to the speed and efficiency through which we are able to conduct this review, as previously described [8]. In the absence of an EQUATOR guidance document, we used PRISMA guidelines where applicable [9]. Studies were included if they met the following criteria 1) population – non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, 2) intervention – prone positioning, 3) comparator – usual management, 4) outcomes – intubation, survival, change in respiratory parameters, adverse events, 5) setting – hospitalized patients 6) study design – observational or randomized control trial. Studies were not limited to ARDS or COVID-19 patients. The search strategy was developed by a critical care physician (KP), a critical care epidemiologist (KF) and a medical librarian (NL) (See search details in Online Supplement). Briefly, the search strategy involved combinations of keywords and subject headings relating to the concepts of, 1) SARS-Cov-2 or COVID-19 or coronavirus, 2) awake prone positioning, and 3) hypoxemic respiratory failure, including but not limited to ARDS and other potentially relevant conditions. The search was conducted on May 19, 2020 and was updated on August 7, 2020 with no restrictions on publication language or date. Databases and grey literature sources searched included: MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Trip PRO, Cochrane Library, LitCOVID, WHO COVID-19 Research Database, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), medRxiv, BMJ Best Practice, Cambridge Coronavirus Free Access Collection, and Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts were reviewed independently and in duplicate (KP and JW) for selection for full text review. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer (KS). Full text review and data abstraction was conducted independently and in duplicate (KP, KS, JW). Data abstracted included study characteristics, participant demographics, and outcomes.
| S-EPMC7450241 | biostudies-literature