Bedeutung nicht-invasiver Verfahren in der Therapie des akuten hypoxämischen Versagens bei COVID-19

Pneumologie ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfram Windisch ◽  
Bernd Schönhofer ◽  
Daniel Sebastian Majorski ◽  
Maximilian Wollsching-Strobel ◽  
Carl-Peter Criée ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
High Flow Oxygen ◽  
Invasive Verfahren

ZusammenfassungIn der Corona-Pandemie werden zunehmend nicht-invasive Verfahren zur Behandlung des akuten hypoxämischen Versagens bei COVID-19 eingesetzt. Hier stehen mit der HFOT (high-flow oxygen therapy), CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) und der NIV (non-invasive ventilation) unterschiedliche Verfahren zur Verfügung, die das Ziel einer Intubationsvermeidung verfolgen. Der aktuelle Übersichtsartikel fasst die heterogene Studienlage zusammen. Wesentlich ist die Erkenntnis, dass diese nicht-invasiven Verfahren durchaus auch bei einem schweren, akuten hypoxämischen Versagen erfolgreich sein können und damit die Intubation wie auch Tubus-assoziierte Komplikationen vermeiden können. Demgegenüber bleibt aber ebenso zu betonen, dass die prolongierte unterstützte Spontanatmung ebenfalls zu Komplikationen führt und dass demzufolge insbesondere ein spätes NIV-Versagen mit erheblich verschlechterter Prognose einhergeht, was vor dem Hintergrund weiterhin hoher NIV-Versagensraten in Deutschland bedeutsam ist. Der aktuelle Artikel verweist schließlich auch auf einen Parallelartikel in dieser Ausgabe, der die medial in der Öffentlichkeit in Deutschland geführte Debatte zu diesem Thema aufgreift und deren inhaltliche Fragwürdigkeit, aber auch die negativen Auswirkungen auf die Gesellschaft und die Fachwelt adressiert. Gleichzeitig wird die Bedeutung von regelmäßig zu überarbeitenden Leitlinien untermauert.

scholarly journals Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Malakian ◽  
Mohammad Reza Aramesh ◽  
Mina Agahin ◽  
Masoud Dehdashtian
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Abstract Background The most common cause of respiratory failure in premature infants is respiratory distress syndrome. Historically, respiratory distress syndrome has been treated by intratracheal surfactant injection followed by mechanical ventilation. In view of the risk of pulmonary injury associated with mechanical ventilation and subsequent chronic pulmonary lung disease, less invasive treatment modalities have been suggested to reduce pulmonary complications. Methods 148 neonates (with gestational age of 28 to 34 weeks) with respiratory distress syndrome admitted to Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahwaz in 2018 were enrolled in this clinical trial study. 74 neonates were assigned to duo positive airway pressure (NDUOPAP) group and 74 neonates to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) group. The primary outcome in this study was failure of N-DUOPAP and NCPAP treatments within the first 72 h after birth and secondary outcomes included treatment complications. Results there was not significant difference between DUOPAP (4.1 %) and NCPAP (8.1 %) in treatment failure at the first 72 h of birth (p = 0.494), but non-invasive ventilation time was less in the DUOPAP group (p = 0.004). There were not significant differences in the frequency of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), pneumothorax, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), apnea and mortality between the two groups. Need for repeated doses of surfactant (p = 0.042) in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group. The duration of oxygen therapy in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group (p = 0.034). Also, the duration of hospitalization in the NDUOPAP group was shorter than that of the NCPAP group (p = 0.002). Conclusions In the present study, DUOPAP compared to NCPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h of birth, but the duration of non-invasive ventilation and oxygen demand, the need for multiple doses of surfactant and length of stay in the DUOPAP group were less than those in the CPAP group. Trial registration IRCT20180821040847N1, Approved on 2018-09-10.

Department of Internal Medicine. University Hospital of Patras. Patras.

2022 ◽  
Vol 35 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Themistoklis Paraskevas ◽  
Eleousa Oikonomou ◽  
Maria Lagadinou ◽  
Vasileios Karamouzos ◽  
Nikolaos Zareifopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Case Series ◽  
High Flow ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
High Flow Oxygen

Introduction: Oxygen therapy remains the cornerstone for managing patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and several modalities of non-invasive ventilation are used worldwide. High-flow oxygen via nasal canula is one therapeutic option which may in certain cases prevent the need of mechanical ventilation. The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence on the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.Material and Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Library until April 2021 using the following search terms: “high flow oxygen and COVID-19” and “high flow nasal and COVID-19’’.Results: Twenty-three articles were included in this review, in four of which prone positioning was used as an adjunctive measure. Most of the articles were cohort studies or case series. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy was associated with a reduced need for invasive ventilation compared to conventional oxygen therapy and led to an improvement in secondary clinical outcomes such as length of stay. The efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy was comparable to that of other non-invasive ventilation options, but its tolerability is likely higher. Failure of this modality was associated with increased mortality.Conclusion: High flow nasal oxygen is an established option for respiratory support in COVID-19 patients. Further investigation is required to quantify its efficacy and utility in preventing the requirement of invasive ventilation.

scholarly journals The impact of non-invasive respiratory support techniques on the lethal outcome frequency in adult with severe respiratory failure caused by the new coronavirus infection

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56
Author(s):  
К. A. Tsygankov ◽  
I. N. Grachev ◽  
Vladimir I. Shatalov ◽  
А. V. Schegolev ◽  
D. A. Аveryanov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Severe Respiratory Failure ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
High Flow Oxygen ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
Group 2

The objective: to evaluate the effect of high-flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation on the mortality rate in adults with severe respiratory failure caused by the new coronavirus infection in the intensive care unit (ICU).Subjects and methods. A one-center retrospective study was conducted. Electronic medical files of patients treated in the ICU from April 1 to May 25, 2020, were analyzed. Totally, 101 medical files were selected, further, they were divided into two groups. Group 1 (n = 49) included patients who received oxygen insufflation, and should it fail, they received traditional artificial ventilation. No non-invasive respiratory therapy was used in this group. Group 2 (n = 52) included patients who received high-flow oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation. The mortality rate in the groups made a primary endpoint for assessing the impact of high-flow oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation. The following parameters were also analyzed: drug therapy, the number of patients in whom non-invasive techniques were used taking into account the frequency of cases when these techniques failed, and the number of patients in whom artificial ventilation was initiated.Results. In Group 2, non-invasive methods of respiratory therapy were used in 31 (60%) cases. High-flow oxygen therapy was used in 19 (36%) of them; in 13 cases this method allowed weaning them from the high flow. Non-invasive ventilation was used in 18 cases, in 12 patients it was used due to progressing severe respiratory failure during humidified oxygen insufflation, in 6 patients – after the failed high-flow oxygen therapy. In Group 1, 25 (51%) patients were intubated and transferred to artificial ventilation, in Group 2, 10 (19.2%) underwent the same. The lethal outcome was registered in 23 (47%) cases in Group 1, and in 10 (19.2%) in Group 2 (p = 0.004). Analysis of drug therapy in the groups revealed the difference in the prescription of pathogenetic therapy. Logistic regression demonstrated the effectiveness of the combination of tocilizumab + a glucocorticoid in reducing the frequency of lethal cases (p = 0.001).Conclusion. The use of non-invasive respiratory support in adults with severe respiratory failure caused by the new coronavirus infection combined with therapy by tocilizumab + a glucocorticoid can reduce the incidence of lethal cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document