scholarly journals Predictors of Non-invasive Ventilation Response Do Not Indicate Response to High Flow Nasal Oxygen: A Bicentric Observational Study.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Hermann ◽  
Lena-Franziska Lauschke-Leberfinger ◽  
Johann Auer ◽  
Irene Steiner ◽  
Robin Ristl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Sofa Score ◽  
Base Excess ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Rate Base ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Abstract BackgroundIn patients receiving high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), predicting chance of response is crucial in order to avoid unnecessary delay of intubation. Whether commonly used predictors of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) response may be as applicable for HFNO, is unclear.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective bi-centric analysis of adults treated with HFNO in two Austrian medical intensive care units from 01/2014 until 09/2017. Predictive value of respiratory rate, PaO2, PaCO2, SpO2, ROX index, pH, heart rate, base excess, SOFA-Score and SAPS III was analysed by means of logistic regression with HFNO responding as dependent variable. Calculations were also done separately in patients receiving HFNO as post-extubation support (Group A) and all other indications (Group B). ResultsWe registered 127 patients (m:f = 70:57, median age: 67 [IQR 53-77] years). Forty-eight patients (37.8%) received HFNO as post-extubation support and were assigned to group A. Seventy-nine patients (62.2%) received HFNO due to any other indication and were assigned to group B. Criteria of HFNO response were fulfilled by 42 patients (87.5%) of group A and 53 (67.1%) of group B patients.Whereas respiratory rate, PaO2, PaCO2, SpO2, pH, heart rate, base excess, SOFA-Score and SAPS III did not differ between responders and non-responders, ROX index showed significant association with HFNO success in all patients. With increasing ROX index, the odds for response increased (OR [95% CI]: baseline: 1.21 [1.05, 1.38], p = 0.0069, after 2 hours: 1.19 [1.05; 1.34], p = 0.0061, after 6 hours: 1.23 [1.06; 1.42], p = 0.0049). Subgroup analyses revealed similar odds ratios for ROX index (baseline: group A: 1.17 [0.90; 1.52], p = 0.24; group B: 1.22 [1.04; 1.43], p = 0.015; after 2 hours: 1.30 [0.94; 1.82], p = 0.12, group B: 1.18 [1.03; 1.34], p = 0.014; after 6 hours: 1.76 [1.01; 3.06], p = 0.047, group B: 1.19 [1.03; 1.37], p = 0.022). ConclusionsCriteria of HFNO success deviate from criteria for response to NIV. ROX index indicated HFNO response in a wide range of indications.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Remdesivir over Two Waves of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 1477
Author(s):  
Mariacristina Poliseno ◽  
Crescenzio Gallo ◽  
Donatella Concetta Cibelli ◽  
Graziano Antonio Minafra ◽  
Irene Francesca Bottalico ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antiviral Treatment ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Clinical Recovery ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Low Rate

The aim of this study is to describe the features, the outcomes, and the clinical issues related to Remdesivir administration of a cohort of 220 patients (pts) with COVID-19 hospitalized throughout the last two pandemic waves in Italy. One hundred and nine pts were enrolled from 1 September 2020, to 28 February 2021 (Group A) and 111 from 1 March to 30 September 2021 (Group B). Notably, no differences were reported between the two groups neither in the timing of hospitalization. nor in the timing of Remdesivir administration from symptoms onset. Remarkably, a higher proportion of pts with severe COVID-19 was observed in Group B (25% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). At univariate and multivariate analysis, rather than the timing of Remdesivir administration, age, presence of coexisting conditions, D-dimers, and O2 flow at admission correlated positively to progression to non-invasive ventilation, especially for patients in Group B. However, the rate of admission in the Intensive Care Unit and/or death was comparable in the two groups (7% vs. 4%). Negligible variations in serum GOT, GPT, GGT, and eGFR levels were detected. A mean reduction in heart rate was noticed within the first three days of antiviral treatment (p < 0.001). Low rate of ICU admission, high rate of clinical recovery, and good drug safety were observed in COVID-19 patients treated with Remdesivir during two diverse pandemic waves.

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

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