High-flow nasal cannula therapy for hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is poorly understood and remains controversial.Methods
We evaluated a large cohort of patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure at the temporary COVID-19 hospital in Mexico City. The primary outcome was the success rate of HFNC to prevent the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We also evaluated the risk factors associated with HFNC success or failure.Results
HFNC use effectively prevented IMV in 71.4% of patients [270 of 378 patients; 95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6-75.8%]. Factors that were significantly different at admission included age, the presence of hypertension, and the Charlson comorbidity index. Predictors of therapy failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI) included the comorbidity-age-lymphocyte count-lactate dehydrogenase (CALL) score at admission (1.27, 1.09-1.47; p < 0.01), Rox index at 1 hour (0.82, 0.7-0.96; p = 0.02), and no prior steroid treatment (0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62; p < 0.0001). Patients with HFNC success rarely required admission to the intensive care unit and had shorter lengths of hospital stay [19/270 (7.0%) and 15.0 (interquartile range, 11-20) days, respectively] than those who required IMV [104/108 (96.3%) and 26.5 (20-36) days, respectively].Conclusion
Treating patients with HFNC at admission led to improvement in respiratory parameters in many patients with COVID-19.
SUBMITTER: Chavarria AP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419547 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been recommended as a suitable choice for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure before mechanical ventilation (MV); however, delaying MV with HFNC therapy is still a dilemma between the technique and clinical management during the ongoing pandemic. Methods: Retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC therapy from four hospitals of Wuhan, China. Demographic information and clinical variables before, at, and shortly after HFNC initiation were collected and analyzed. A risk-stratification model of HFNC failure (the need for MV) was developed with the 324 patients of Jin Yin-tan Hospital and validated its accuracy with 69 patients of other hospitals. Results: Among the training cohort, the median duration of HFNC therapy was 6 (range, 3-11), and 147 experienced HFNC failure within 7 days of HFNC initiation. Early predictors of HFNC failure on the basis of a multivariate regression analysis included age older than 60 years [odds ratio (OR), 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-3.44; p = 0.027; 2 points], respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ROX) <5.31 (OR, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.96-9.20; p < 0.001; 5 points) within the first 4 h of HFNC initiation, platelets < 125 × 109/L (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.46-6.35; p = 0.003; 3 points), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) >7.0 pg/mL (OR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.79-6.23; p < 0.001; 3 points) at HFNC initiation. A weighted risk-stratification model of these predictors showed sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 71.2% and a better predictive ability than ROX index alone [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.807 vs. 0.779, p < 0.001]. Six points were used as a cutoff value for the risk of HFNC failure stratification. The HFNC success probability of patients in low-risk group (84.2%) was 9.84 times that in the high-risk group (34.8%). In the subsequent validation cohort, the AUC of the model was 0.815 (0.71-0.92). Conclusions: Aged patients with lower ROX index, thrombocytopenia, and elevated IL-6 values are at increased risk of HFNC failure. The risk-stratification models accurately predicted the HFNC failure and early stratified COVID-19 patients with HFNC therapy into relevant risk categories.
| S-EPMC7793962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can develop rapidly progressive respiratory failure. Ventilation strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic seek to minimize patient mortality. In this study we examine associations between the availability of emergency department (ED)-initiated high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for patients presenting with COVID-19 respiratory distress and outcomes, including rates of endotracheal intubation (ETT), mortality, and hospital length of stay.MethodsWe performed a retrospective, non-concurrent cohort study of patients with COVID-19 respiratory distress presenting to the ED who required HFNC or ETT in the ED or within 24 hours following ED departure. Comparisons were made between patients presenting before and after the introduction of an ED-HFNC protocol.ResultsUse of HFNC was associated with a reduced rate of ETT in the ED (46.4% vs 26.3%, P <0.001) and decreased the cumulative proportion of patients who required ETT within 24 hours of ED departure (85.7% vs 32.6%, P <0.001) or during their entire hospitalization (89.3% vs 48.4%, P <0.001). Using HFNC was also associated with a trend toward increased survival to hospital discharge; however, this was not statistically significant (50.0% vs 68.4%, P = 0.115). There was no impact on intensive care unit or hospital length of stay. Demographics, comorbidities, and illness severity were similar in both cohorts.ConclusionsThe institution of an ED-HFNC protocol for patients with COVID-19 respiratory distress was associated with reductions in the rate of ETT. Early initiation of HFNC is a promising strategy for avoiding ETT and improving outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8328178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE:Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS:High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.
| S-EPMC7294988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is a recent technique delivering a high flow of heated and humidified gas. HFNC is simpler to use and apply than noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and appears to be a good alternative treatment for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF). HFNC is better tolerated than NIV, delivers high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), generates a low level of positive pressure and provides washout of dead space in the upper airways, thereby improving mechanical pulmonary properties and unloading inspiratory muscles during ARF. A recent multicenter randomized controlled trial showed benefits of HFNC concerning mortality and intubation in severe patients with hypoxemic ARF. In management of patients with hypoxemic ARF, NIV results have been conflicting. Despite improved oxygenation, NIV delivered with face mask may generate high tidal volumes and subsequent ventilator-induced lung injury. An approach applying NIV with a helmet, high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and low pressure support (PS) levels seems to open new opportunities in patients with hypoxemic ARF. However, a large-scale randomized controlled study is needed to assess and compare this approach with HFNC.
| S-EPMC5537116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Usually, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is indicated for de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Although only a few researches have examined the effectiveness of HFNC therapy for respiratory failure with hypercapnia, this therapy is often performed under such conditions for various reasons. We investigated the effectiveness of HFNC therapy for AHRF patients with hypercapnia compared to those without hypercapnia. METHODS:All consecutive patients receiving HFNC therapy between January 2012 and June 2018 at a university hospital were enrolled and classified into nonhypercapnic and hypercapnic groups. We compared the outcomes of both groups and adjusted the outcomes with propensity score matching. RESULTS:A total of 862 patients were enrolled, of which 202 were included in the hypercapnic group. HFNC weaning success rates were higher, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality was lower in the hypercapnic group than in the nonhypercapnic group (all P < 0.05). However, no statistical differences in HFNC weaning success (adjusted P = 0.623, matched P = 0.593), ICU mortality (adjusted P = 0.463, matched P = 0.195), and hospital mortality (adjusted P = 0.602, matched P = 0.579) were noted from the propensity-adjusted and propensity-matched analyses. Additionally, in the propensity score-matched subgroup analysis (according to chronic lung diseases and causes of HFNC application), there was also no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION:In AHRF with underlying conditions, HFNC therapy might be helpful for patients with hypercapnia. Large prospective and randomized controlled trials are required for firm conclusions.
| S-EPMC7073320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStandard high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a respiratory support device widely used to manage post-extubation hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) due to greater comfort, oxygenation, alveolar recruitment, humidification, and reduction of dead space, as compared to conventional oxygen therapy. On the contrary, the effects of the new asymmetrical HFNC interface (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) is still under discussion. Our aim is investigating whether the use of asymmetrical HFNC interface presents any relevant difference, compared with the standard configuration, on lung aeration (as assessed by end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) measured by electrical impedance tomography (EIT)), diaphragm ultrasound thickening fraction (TFdi) and excursion (DE), ventilatory efficiency (estimated by corrected minute ventilation (MV)), gas exchange, dyspnea, and comfort.MethodsPilot physiological crossover randomized controlled study enrolling 20 adults admitted to the Intensive Care unit, invasively ventilated for at least 24 h, and developing post-extubation hARF, i.e., PaO2/set FiO2 < 300 mmHg during Venturi mask (VM) within 120 min after extubation. Each HFNC configuration was applied in a randomized 60 min sequence at a flow rate of 60 L/min.ResultsGlobal EELI, TFdi, DE, ventilatory efficiency, gas exchange and dyspnea were not significantly different, while comfort was greater during asymmetrical HFNC support, as compared to standard interface (10 [7-10] and 8 [7-9], p-value 0.044).ConclusionsIn post-extubation hARF, the use of the asymmetrical HFNC, as compared to standard HFNC interface, slightly improved patient comfort without affecting lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea and gas exchange.Clinical trial numberClinicalTrial.gov.Registration numberNCT05838326 (01/05/2023).New & noteworthyThe asymmetrical high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) provides greater comfort as compared to standard interface; while their performance in term of lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea, and gas exchange is similar.
| S-EPMC10775427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) to treat COVID-19 pneumonia has been greatly debated around the world due to concerns about increased health care worker transmission and delays in invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Herein, we analyzed the utility of the noninvasive ROX (ratio of oxygen saturation) index to predict the need for and timing of IMV.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess whether the ROX index can be a useful score to predict intubation and IMV in patients receiving HFNT as treatment for COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort analysis of 129 consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, PA, from March 10, 2020, to May 17, 2020. This is a single-center study conducted in designated COVID-19 units (intensive care unit and other wards) at Temple University Hospital. Patients with moderate and severe hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNT were included in the study. HFNT patients were divided into two groups: HFNT only and intubation (ie, patients who progressed from HFNT to IMV). The primary outcome was the value of the ROX index in predicting the need for IMV. Secondary outcomes were mortality, rate of intubation, length of stay, and rate of nosocomial infections in a cohort treated initially with HFNT.ResultsOf the 837 patients with COVID-19, 129 met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 60.8 (SD 13.6) years, mean BMI was 32.6 (SD 8) kg/m², 58 (45%) were female, 72 (55.8%) were African American, 40 (31%) were Hispanic, and 48 (37.2%) were nonsmokers. The mean time to intubation was 2.5 (SD 3.3) days. An ROX index value of less than 5 at HFNT initiation was suggestive of progression to IMV (odds ratio [OR] 2.137, P=.052). Any further decrease in ROX index value after HFNT initiation was predictive of intubation (OR 14.67, P<.001). Mortality was 11.2% (n=10) in the HFNT-only group versus 47.5% (n=19) in the intubation group (P<.001). Mortality and need for pulmonary vasodilators were higher in the intubation group.ConclusionsThe ROX index helps decide which patients need IMV and may limit eventual morbidity and mortality associated with the progression to IMV.
| S-EPMC8404242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe bronchial asthma complicated with respiratory failure, a common critical illness in respiratory medicine, may be life-threatening. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a novel oxygen therapy technique developed in recent years. HFNC was applied in this study for treating adult patients with severe bronchial asthma complicated with respiratory failure. Its efficacy was analyzed comparatively to conventional oxygen therapy (COT). HFNC and COT were randomly performed based on conventional treatment. The HFNC group was similar to COT-treated patients in terms of response rate, with no significant difference in efficacy between the two groups. In patients with bronchial asthma, effectively increased PO2 and reduced PCO2 were observed after treatment in both groups. However, HFNC was more efficient than COT in elevating PO2 in patients with severe bronchial asthma complicated with respiratory failure, while no statistically significant difference in PCO2 reduction was found between the two groups. Heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) between the two groups on admission (0?h) and at 2, 8, 24, and 48?h after admission were compared. Both indicators significantly decreased with time. No significant differences in HR and RR were found between the groups at 0, 2, and 8?h after admission. However, these indicators were significantly lower in the HFNC group compared with the COT group at 24 and 48?h after admission. HFNC could significantly elevate PO2 and reduce HR and RR. Thus, it is a promising option for patients with severe bronchial asthma complicated with respiratory failure.
| S-EPMC7054795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Although the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in hypoxemic respiratory failure are widely recognized, it is yet unclear whether HFNC can effectively reduce the intubation rate and mortality in hypercapnic respiratory failure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficiency of HFNC in these patients. Methods:A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) was carried out. Two reviewers independently screened all references according to the inclusion criteria. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, respectively. Data from eligible trials were extracted for the meta-analysis. Results:Eight studies with a total of 621 participants were included (six RCTs and two cohort studies). Our analysis showed that HFNC is noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with respect to intubation rate in both RCTs (OR?=?0.92, 95% CI: 0.45-1.88) and cohort studies (OR?=?0.94, 95% CI: 0.55-1.62). Similarly, the analysis of cohort studies showed no difference in reducing mortality rates (OR?=?0.96, 95% CI: 0.42-2.20). Based on RCTs, NIV seemed more effective in reducing mortality (OR?=?1.33, 95% CI: 0.68-2.60), but the intertreatment difference was not statistically signi?cant. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between HFNC and NIV relating to change of blood gas analysis or respiratory rate (MD?=?-0.75, 95% CI: -2.6 to 1.09). Likewise, no significant intergroup differences were found with regard to intensive care unit stay (SMD?=?-0.07, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.11). Due to a physiological friendly interface and variation, HFNC showed a significant advantage over NIV in patients' comfort and complication of therapy. Conclusion:Despite the limitations noted, HFNC may be an effective and safe alternative to prevent endotracheal intubation and mortality when NIV is unsuitable in mild-to-moderate hypercapnia. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.
| S-EPMC7647788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a useful treatment modality for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in children. We compared the ability of the oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (S/F) and arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (P/F) to predict HFNC outcomes in children with AHRF. This study included children treated with HFNC due to AHRF from April 2013 to March 2019 at the Severance Children's Hospital. HFNC failure was defined as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trends of S/F and P/F during HFNC were analyzed. To predict HFNC outcomes, a nomogram was constructed based on predictive factors. A total of 139 patients with arterial blood gas data were included in the S/F and P/F analyses. S/F < 230 at initiation showed high prediction accuracy for HFNC failure (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.751). Univariate analyses identified S/F < 230 at HFNC initiation and < 200 at 2 h (odds ratio [OR] 12.83, 95% CI 5.06-35.84), and hemato-oncologic disease (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.12-12.78) as significant predictive factors of HFNC failure. The constructed nomogram had a highly predictive performance, with a concordance index of 0.765 and 0.831 for the exploratory and validation groups, respectively. S/F may be used as a predictor of HFNC outcomes. Our nomogram with S/F for HFNC failure within 2 h may prevent delayed intubation in children with AHRF.
| S-EPMC8242081 | biostudies-literature