High Flow Nasal Canula (HFNC) In COVID-19 Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (CARDS)

Pasien COVID-19 related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (CARDS) dengan gejala ARDS sedang hingga berat memerlukan Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) dan memiliki prognosis yang buruk dengan angka ARDS sekitar 75% serta 63% menerima Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) dengan tingkat kematian 59% . Tingginya angka kematian pasien CARDS mendapat terapi invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) menyebabkan para praktisi kesehatan berusaha untuk menunda intubasi dan ventilasi mekanik secara dini sehingga Non Invasive Ventilation Mechanic (NIV), CPAP dan HFNC menjadi alternatif terapi dalam penanganan CARDS. Kasus: Perempuan usia 49 tahun, masuk ICU dengan diagnosa POH-4 Craniectomy evakuasi tumor sphenoid, Sepsis Syok dan Covid-19 terkonfirmasi. Pada pemeriksaan didapatkan hipoksemia dengan ARDS berat P/F ratio 112.1 mmHg dan gambaran pneumonia dextra dan efusi pleura dextra. Sebelum pindah ke ICU Covid, pasien mendapatkan terapi HFNC FiO2 40% dengan flow 35 L/menit, RR 25, Saturasi 95%, ROX index 9,5. Pemeriksaan laboratorium didapatkan Wbc : 7.800/L, Hb: 8,1mg/dl, Plt : 131.000/mm3, Bilirubin total 1,3 mg/dl, bilirubin direct 0,83 mg/dl, Na/K/cl : 143/2,9/111, Procalcitonin : 11.2. Kesimpulan: Terapi oksigen dengan HFNC pada CARDS sedang sampai berat menjadi pilihan bijaksana dimana terapi HFNC dapat menunda intubasi dan IMV dengan outcome yang baik. Sebagaimana Surviving Sepsis/Society of Critical Care Medicine merekomendasikan HFNC sebagai pendekatan lini pertama.

Download Full-text

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

BMC Pediatrics ◽

10.1186/s12887-021-02741-w ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

British Journal of Hospital Medicine ◽

10.12968/hmed.2021.0109 ◽

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.

Download Full-text