Dataset Information

Noninvasive respiratory support for COVID-19 patients: when, for whom, and how?

ABSTRACT: The significant mortality rate and prolonged ventilator days associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with severe COVID-19 have incited a debate surrounding the use of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) (i.e., HFNC, CPAP, NIV) as a potential treatment strategy. Central to this debate is the role of NIRS in preventing intubation in patients with mild respiratory disease and the potential beneficial effects on both patient outcome and resource utilization. However, there remains valid concern that use of NIRS may prolong time to intubation and lung protective ventilation in patients with more advanced disease, thereby worsening respiratory mechanics via self-inflicted lung injury. In addition, the risk of aerosolization with the use of NIRS has the potential to increase healthcare worker (HCW) exposure to the virus. We review the existing literature with a focus on rationale, patient selection and outcomes associated with the use of NIRS in COVID-19 and prior pandemics, as well as in patients with acute respiratory failure due to different etiologies (i.e., COPD, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, etc.) to understand the potential role of NIRS in COVID-19 patients. Based on this analysis we suggest an algorithm for NIRS in COVID-19 patients which includes indications and contraindications for use, monitoring recommendations, systems-based practices to reduce HCW exposure, and predictors of NIRS failure. We also discuss future research priorities for addressing unanswered questions regarding NIRS use in COVID-19 with the goal of improving patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Sullivan ZP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8760575 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The lack of available biomarkers for diagnosing and predicting different stages of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently one of the main challenges that clinicians are facing. Recent evidence indicates that the plasma levels of specific miRNAs may be significantly modified in COVID-19 patients. Large-scale deep sequencing analysis of small RNA expression was performed on plasma samples from 40 patients hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (between March and May 2020) (median 13.50 [IQR 9–24] days since symptoms initiation) and 21 healthy noninfected individuals. Patients were categorized as hospitalized not requiring oxygen therapy (n = 6), hospitalized requiring low-flow oxygen (n = 23), and hospitalized requiring high-flow oxygen support (n = 11). A total of 1218 different micro(mi)RNAs were identified. When compared with healthy noninfected donors, SARS-CoV-2 infected patients showed significantly (fold change [FC] >1.2 and adjusted p [padj] <0.05) altered expression of 190 miRNAs. The top 10 differentially expressed (DE) miRNAs were miR-122-5p, let-7b-5p, miR-146a-5p, miR-342-3p, miR-146b-5p, miR-629-5p, miR-24-3p, miR-12136, let-7a-5p, and miR-191-5p, which displayed FC and padj values ranging from 153 to 5 and 2.51 × 10-32 to 2.21 × 10-21, respectively, which unequivocally diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection. No differences in blood cell counts and biochemical plasma parameters, including interleukin 6, ferritin and D-dimer, were observed between COVID-19 patients on high-flow oxygen therapy, low-flow oxygen therapy, or not requiring oxygen therapy. Notably, 31 significantly deregulated miRNAs were found when patients on high- and low-flow oxygen therapy were compared. Similarly, 6 DE miRNAs were identified between patients on high flow and those not requiring oxygen therapy. SARS-CoV-2 infection generates a specific miRNA signature in hospitalized patients. Furthermore, specific miRNA profiles are associated with COVID-19 prognosis in severe patients.

Project description:BackgroundGiven the known downstream implications of choice of respiratory support on patient outcomes, all factors influencing these decisions, even those not limited to the patient, warrant close consideration. We examined the effect of emergency department (ED)-specific system factors, such as work load and census, on the use of noninvasive versus invasive respiratory support.MethodsWe conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study of all adult subjects with severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission from 5 EDs within a single urban health care system. Subject demographics, severity of illness, and the type of respiratory support used were obtained. Using continuous measures of ED census, boarding, and active management, we estimated ED work load for each subjects' ED stay. The subjects were categorized by type(s) of respiratory support used: low-flow oxygen, noninvasive respiratory support (eg, noninvasive ventilation [NIV] and/or high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]), invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation after trial of NIV/HFNC. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine system factors associated with the type of respiratory support used in the ED.ResultsA total of 634 subjects were included. Of these, 431 (70.0%) were managed on low-flow oxygen alone, 108 (17.0%) on NIV/HFNC, 54 (8.5%) on invasive mechanical ventilation directly, and 41 (6.5%) on NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED. Higher severity of illness and underlying lung disease increased the odds of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 1.05 [95% CI 1.03-1.07] and odds ratio 3.47 [95% CI 1.37-8.78], respectively). Older age decreased odds of being on invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 0.96 [95% CI 0.94-0.99]). As ED work load increased, the odds for subjects to be managed initially with NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation increased 6-8-fold.ConclusionsHigh ED work load was associated with higher odds on HFNC/NIV prior to invasive mechanical ventilation.

Dataset Information

Noninvasive respiratory support for COVID-19 patients: when, for whom, and how?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets