scholarly journals Non-invasive ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory failure: a subanalysis from the HOPE COVID-19 registry

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 359-365
Author(s):  
Maurizio Bertaina ◽  
Ivan J Nuñez-Gil ◽  
Luca Franchin ◽  
Inmaculada Fernández Rozas ◽  
Ramón Arroyo-Espliguero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has seriously challenged worldwide healthcare systems and limited intensive care facilities, leading to physicians considering the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for managing SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory failure (ARF).MethodsWe conducted an interim analysis of the international, multicentre HOPE COVID-19 registry including patients admitted for a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection until 18 April 2020. Those treated with NIV were considered. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or need for intubation. The components of the composite endpoint were the secondary outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted predictors of the primary endpoint within those initially treated with NIV were investigated.Results1933 patients who were included in the registry during the study period had data on oxygen support type. Among them, 390 patients (20%) were treated with NIV. Compared with those receiving other non-invasive oxygen strategy, patients receiving NIV showed significantly worse clinical and laboratory signs of ARF at presentation. Of the 390 patients treated with NIV, 173 patients (44.4%) met the composite endpoint. In-hospital death was the main determinant (147, 37.7%), while 62 patients (15.9%) needed invasive ventilation. Those requiring invasive ventilation had the lowest survival rate (41.9%). After adjustment, age (adjusted OR (adj(OR)) for 5-year increase: 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.63, p<0.001), hypertension (adj(OR) 2.95, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.61, p=0.03), room air O2 saturation <92% at presentation (adj(OR) 3.05, 95% CI 1.28 to 7.28, p=0.01), lymphocytopenia (adj(OR) 3.55, 95% CI 1.16 to 10.85, p=0.03) and in-hospital use of antibiotic therapy (adj(OR) 4.91, 95% CI 1.69 to 14.26, p=0.003) were independently associated with the composite endpoint.ConclusionNIV was used in a significant proportion of patients within our cohort, and more than half of these patients survived without the need for intubation. NIV may represent a viable strategy particularly in case of overcrowded and limited intensive care resources, but prompt identification of failure is mandatory to avoid harm. Further studies are required to better clarify our hypothesis.Trial registration numbersNCT04334291/EUPAS34399.

scholarly journals Role of Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure in Cancer Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 298-301
Author(s):  
Madindra Bahadur Basnet ◽  
Krishna Prasad Acharya ◽  
Deepak Adhikari
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Timely Initiation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Introduction: Acute respiratory failure is a common cause of Intensive care Unit admission for cancer patients. Non-invasive ventilation comes in between the two extreme situations: either provide only oxygen or ventilate invasively. This study was done to find the usefulness and efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in a cancer patient. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was done at Nepal Cancer Hospital. Data analysis of patients requiring non-invasive ventilation at the Intensive care Unit from April 14, 2018, to April 13, 2019, were included. Results: Among 68 studied patients, the primary reason for the initiation of non-invasive ventilation sepsis (16.32%), pneumonia (10.88%), and lung cancer (10.2%). Postoperative atelectasis, pulmonary edema, and morphine overdose were associated with good respiratory improvement and Intensive care Unit survival (100%, 75% and 66.67% respectively). Respiratory failure with carcinoma lung, lung fibrosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, terminally ill patients, and patients with low Glasgow Coma Scale had high failure rates (Survival: 13.33%, 14.29%, 16.67%, 0%, and 20% respectively). Conclusions: Non-invasive ventilation seems to be an effective way of ventilation for cancer patients. The selection of patients and timely initiation of non-invasive ventilation is of utmost importance for a better outcome.  

scholarly journals Awake Prone Positioning, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and Non-Invasive Ventilation as Non-Invasive Respiratory Strategies in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 391
Author(s):  
Benedikt Schmid ◽  
Mirko Griesel ◽  
Anna-Lena Fischer ◽  
Carolina S. Romero ◽  
Maria-Inti Metzendorf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Background: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. Results: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.65–1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03–1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71–0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51–2.31). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.

scholarly journals Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in ICU patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate orders: a multicentre prospective study OXYPAL

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e045659
Author(s):  
René Robert ◽  
Denis Frasca ◽  
Julie Badin ◽  
C Girault ◽  
Christophe Guitton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionA palliative approach to intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate order corresponds to a poorly evaluated target for non-invasive oxygenation treatments. Survival alone should not be the only target; it also matters to avoid discomfort and to restore the patient’s quality of life. We aim to conduct a prospective multicentre observational study to analyse clinical practices and their impact on outcomes of palliative high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFOT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in ICU patients with do-not-intubate orders.Methods and analysisThis is an investigator-initiated, multicentre prospective observational cohort study comparing the three following strategies of oxygenation: HFOT alone, NIV alternating with HFOT and NIV alternating with standard oxygen in patients admitted in the ICU for acute respiratory failure with a do-not-intubate order. The primary outcome is the hospital survival within 14 days after ICU admission in patients weaned from NIV and HFOT. The sample size was estimated at a minimum of 330 patients divided into three groups according to the oxygenation strategy applied. The analysis takes into account confounding factors by modelling a propensity score.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03673631

Barotrauma during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19: a balance between risks and benefits

2021 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
M Gabrielli ◽  
F Valletta ◽  
F Franceschi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Ventilatory support is vital for the management of severe forms of COVID-19. Non-invasive ventilation is often used in patients who do not meet criteria for intubation or when invasive ventilation is not available, especially in a pandemic when resources are limited. Despite non-invasive ventilation providing effective respiratory support for some forms of acute respiratory failure, data about its effectiveness in patients with viral-related pneumonia are inconclusive. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection causes life-threatening respiratory failure, weakening the lung parenchyma and increasing the risk of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma results from positive pressure ventilation leading to elevated transalveolar pressure, and in turn to alveolar rupture and leakage of air into the extra-alveolar tissue. This article reviews the literature regarding the use of non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other epidemic or pandemic viral infections and the related risk of barotrauma.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document