According to the World Health Organization (WHO), viral diseases continue to emerge and represent a serious issue to public health In the last twenty years, several viral epidemics such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2002 to 2003, and H1N1 influenza in 2009, have been recorded Most recently, the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first identified in Saudi Arabia in 2012 In a timeline that reaches the present day, an epidemic of cases with unexplained low respiratory infections detected in Wuhan, the largest metropolitan area in China's Hubei province, was first reported to the WHO Country Office in China, on December 31, 2019 Published literature can trace the beginning of symptomatic individuals back to the beginning of December 2019 As they were unable to identify the causative agent, these first cases were classified as "pneumonia of unknown etiology " The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local CDCs organized an intensive outbreak investigation program The etiology of this illness is now attributed to a novel virus belonging to the coronavirus (CoV) family, COVID-19 On February 11, 2020, the WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced that the disease caused by this new CoV was a "COVID-19," which is the acronym of "coronavirus disease 2019" In the past twenty years, two additional coronavirus epidemics have occurred  SARS-CoV provoked a large-scale epidemic beginning in China and involving two dozen countries with approximately 8000 cases and 800 deaths, and the MERS-CoV that began in Saudi Arabia and has approximately 2,500 cases and 800 deaths and still causes as sporadic cases This new virus seems to be very contagious and has quickly spread globally In a meeting on January 30, 2020, per the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005), the outbreak was declared by the WHO a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) as it had spread to 18 countries with four countries reporting human-to-human transmission An additional landmark occurred on February 26, 2020, as the first case of the disease, not imported from China, was recorded in the United States Initially, the new virus was called 2019-nCoV Subsequently, the task of experts of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) termed it the SARS-CoV-2 virus as it is very similar to the one that caused the SARS outbreak (SARS-CoVs) The CoVs have become the major pathogens of emerging respiratory disease outbreaks They are a large family of single-stranded RNA viruses (+ssRNA) that can be isolated in different animal species  For reasons yet to be explained, these viruses can cross species barriers and can cause, in humans, illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as MERS and SARS  Interestingly, these latter viruses have probably originated from bats and then moving into other mammalian hosts — the Himalayan palm civet for SARS-CoV, and the dromedary camel for MERS-CoV — before jumping to humans The dynamics of SARS-Cov-2 are currently unknown, but there is speculation that it also has an animal origin The potential for these viruses to grow to become a pandemic worldwide seems to be a serious public health risk Concerning COVID-19, the WHO raised the threat to the CoV epidemic to the "very high" level, on February 28, 2020 Probably, the effects of the epidemic caused by the new CoV has yet to emerge as the situation is quickly evolving World governments are at work to establish countermeasures to stem possible devastating effects Health organizations coordinate information flows and issues directives and guidelines to best mitigate the impact of the threat At the same time, scientists around the world work tirelessly, and information about the transmission mechanisms, the clinical spectrum of disease, new diagnostics, and prevention and therapeutic strategies are rapidly developing Many uncertainties remain with regard to both the virus-host interac ion and the evolution of the epidemic, with specific reference to the times when the epidemic will reach its peak At the moment, the therapeutic strategies to deal with the infection are only supportive, and prevention aimed at reducing transmission in the community is our best weapon Aggressive isolation measures in China have led to a progressive reduction of cases in the last few days In Italy, in geographic regions of the north of the peninsula, political and health authorities are making incredible efforts to contain a shock wave that is severely testing the health system In the midst of the crisis, the authors have chosen to use the "Statpearls" platform because, within the PubMed scenario, it represents a unique tool that may allow them to make updates in real-time  The aim, therefore, is to collect information and scientific evidence and to provide an overview of the topic that will be continuously updated

/pdf/features-evaluation-and-treatment-coronavirus-covid-19-20k4uevtsr.pdf

Features, Evaluation and Treatment Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Importance
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies.


Objective
To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.


Design, Setting, and Participants
A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021.


Interventions
Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475).


Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days.


Results
The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group.


Conclusions and Relevance
Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings.


Trial Registration
isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

The role of non-invasive respiratory support (high-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation) in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome is debated. The oxygenation improvement coupled with lung and diaphragm protection produced by non-invasive support may help to avoid endotracheal intubation, which prevents the complications of sedation and invasive mechanical ventilation. However, spontaneous breathing in patients with lung injury carries the risk that vigorous inspiratory effort, combined or not with mechanical increases in inspiratory airway pressure, produces high transpulmonary pressure swings and local lung overstretch. This ultimately results in additional lung damage (patient self-inflicted lung injury), so that patients intubated after a trial of noninvasive support are burdened by increased mortality. Reducing inspiratory effort by high-flow nasal oxygen or delivery of sustained positive end-expiratory pressure through the helmet interface may reduce these risks. In this physiology-to-bedside review, we provide an updated overview about the role of noninvasive respiratory support strategies as early treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit. Noninvasive strategies appear safe and effective in mild-to-moderate hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg), while they can yield delayed intubation with increased mortality in a significant proportion of moderate-to-severe (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 150 mmHg) cases. High-flow nasal oxygen and helmet noninvasive ventilation represent the most promising techniques for first-line treatment of severe patients. However, no conclusive evidence allows to recommend a single approach over the others in case of moderate-to-severe hypoxemia. During any treatment, strict physiological monitoring remains of paramount importance to promptly detect the need for endotracheal intubation and not delay protective ventilation.

/pdf/non-invasive-ventilatory-support-and-high-flow-nasal-oxygen-jr0fcu08wq.pdf

Non-invasive ventilatory support and high-flow nasal oxygen as first-line treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is an evolving disease. We will focus on the development of its pathophysiologic characteristics over time, and how these time-related changes determine modifications in treatment. In the emergency department: the peculiar characteristic is the coexistence, in a significant fraction of patients, of severe hypoxaemia, near-normal lung computed tomography imaging, lung gas volume and respiratory mechanics. Despite high respiratory drive, dyspnoea and respiratory rate are often normal. The underlying mechanism is primarily altered lung perfusion. The anatomical prerequisites for PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) to work (lung oedema, atelectasis, and therefore recruitability) are lacking. In the high-dependency unit: the disease starts to worsen either because of its natural evolution or additional patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI). Oedema and atelectasis may develop, increasing recruitability. Noninvasive supports are indicated if they result in a reversal of hypoxaemia and a decreased inspiratory effort. Otherwise, mechanical ventilation should be considered to avert P-SILI. In the intensive care unit: the primary characteristic of the advance of unresolved COVID-19 disease is a progressive shift from oedema or atelectasis to less reversible structural lung alterations to lung fibrosis. These later characteristics are associated with notable impairment of respiratory mechanics, increased arterial carbon dioxide tension (P aCO2 ), decreased recruitability and lack of response to PEEP and prone positioning.

https://err.ersjournals.com/content/errev/30/162/210138.full.pdf

COVID-19 pneumonia: pathophysiology and management.

Background: The effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rates is not established. The aim of this trial was to investigate if a protocol for awake prone positioning reduces the rate of endo ...

/pdf/awake-prone-positioning-in-patients-with-hypoxemic-8j6nt7enqh.pdf

Awake prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19: the PROFLO multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Importance High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, −2 to 6];P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, −21% [95% CI, −38% to −3%];P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7];P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, −1% [95% CI, −17% to 15%];P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04502576

/pdf/effect-of-helmet-noninvasive-ventilation-vs-high-flow-nasal-506d8jmgoy.pdf

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The HENIVOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Daniele Natalini

Papers

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The HENIVOT Randomized Clinical Trial.