Non-invasive ventilatory support and high-flow nasal oxygen as first-line treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS.
TL;DR: 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 as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: 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.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article , the authors evaluated whether helmet non-invasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduced mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.
Abstract: Importance
Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited.
Objective
To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021.
Interventions
Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events.
Results
Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group.
Conclusions and Relevance
Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.
21 citations
TL;DR: In this article , a multicenter randomized trial, 494 patients exhibiting PaO2:FiO2 ratio ⩽ 300 mm Hg after extubation were randomly assigned to receive high-flow or VenturiMask oxygen, with the possibility to apply rescue noninvasive ventilation before reintubation.
Abstract: Rationale: When compared with VenturiMask after extubation, high-flow nasal oxygen provides physiological advantages. Objectives: To establish whether high-flow oxygen prevents endotracheal reintubation in hypoxemic patients after extubation, compared with VenturiMask. Methods: In this multicenter randomized trial, 494 patients exhibiting PaO2:FiO2 ratio ⩽ 300 mm Hg after extubation were randomly assigned to receive high-flow or VenturiMask oxygen, with the possibility to apply rescue noninvasive ventilation before reintubation. High-flow use in the VenturiMask group was not permitted. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was the rate of reintubation within 72 hours according to predefined criteria, which were validated a posteriori by an independent adjudication committee. Main secondary outcomes included reintubation rate at 28 days and the need for rescue noninvasive ventilation according to predefined criteria. After intubation criteria validation (n = 492 patients), 32 patients (13%) in the high-flow group and 27 patients (11%) in the VenturiMask group required reintubation at 72 hours (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.26 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70–2.26]; P = 0.49). At 28 days, the rate of reintubation was 21% in the high-flow group and 23% in the VenturiMask group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.60–1.31]; P = 0.55). The need for rescue noninvasive ventilation was significantly lower in the high-flow group than in the VenturiMask group: at 72 hours, 8% versus 17% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22–0.71]; P = 0.002) and at 28 days, 12% versus 21% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32–0.83]; P = 0.007). Conclusions: Reintubation rate did not significantly differ between patients treated with VenturiMask or high-flow oxygen after extubation. High-flow oxygen yielded less frequent use of rescue noninvasive ventilation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02107183).
12 citations
TL;DR: Patients who fail noninvasive support are burdened by worse clinical outcome due to delays in endotracheal intubation with progres-sion of lung injury caused by the prolonged exposure of injured lungs to high inspiratory effort combined to ventilatory heterogeneities.
7 citations
TL;DR: Recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID-19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis are examined.
Abstract: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID‐19) infection pandemic has affected the care of patients with heart failure (HF). Several consensus documents describe the appropriate diagnostic algorithm and treatment approach for patients with HF and associated COVID‐19 infection. However, few questions about the mechanisms by which COVID can exacerbate HF in patients with high‐risk (Stage B) or symptomatic HF (Stage C) remain unanswered. Therefore, the type of HF occurring during infection is poorly investigated. The diagnostic differentiation and management should be focused on the identification of the HF phenotype, underlying causes, and subsequent tailored therapy. In this framework, the relationship existing between COVID and onset of acute decompensated HF, isolated right HF, and cardiogenic shock is questioned, and the specific management is mainly based on local hospital organization rather than a standardized model. Similarly, some specific populations such as advanced HF, heart transplant, patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or valve disease remain under investigated. In this systematic review, we examine recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID‐19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis. Also, according to the recent HF guidelines definition, we highlight different clinical profile identification, pointing out the main concerns in understudied HF populations.
7 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The updated and revised Berlin Definition for ARDS addresses a number of the limitations of the AECC definition and may serve as a model to create more accurate, evidence-based, critical illness syndrome definitions and to better inform clinical care, research, and health services planning.
Abstract: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined in 1994 by the American-European Consensus Conference (AECC); since then, issues regarding the reliability and validity of this definition have emerged. Using a consensus process, a panel of experts convened in 2011 (an initiative of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine endorsed by the American Thoracic Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine) developed the Berlin Definition, focusing on feasibility, reliability, validity, and objective evaluation of its performance. A draft definition proposed 3 mutually exclusive categories of ARDS based on degree of hypoxemia: mild (200 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300 mm Hg), moderate (100 mm Hg < PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 200 mm Hg), and severe (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 100 mm Hg) and 4 ancillary variables for severe ARDS: radiographic severity, respiratory system compliance (≤40 mL/cm H2O), positive end-expiratory pressure (≥10 cm H2O), and corrected expired volume per minute (≥10 L/min). The draft Berlin Definition was empirically evaluated using patient-level meta-analysis of 4188 patients with ARDS from 4 multicenter clinical data sets and 269 patients with ARDS from 3 single-center data sets containing physiologic information. The 4 ancillary variables did not contribute to the predictive validity of severe ARDS for mortality and were removed from the definition. Using the Berlin Definition, stages of mild, moderate, and severe ARDS were associated with increased mortality (27%; 95% CI, 24%-30%; 32%; 95% CI, 29%-34%; and 45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%, respectively; P < .001) and increased median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (5 days; interquartile [IQR], 2-11; 7 days; IQR, 4-14; and 9 days; IQR, 5-17, respectively; P < .001). Compared with the AECC definition, the final Berlin Definition had better predictive validity for mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.577 (95% CI, 0.561-0.593) vs 0.536 (95% CI, 0.520-0.553; P < .001). This updated and revised Berlin Definition for ARDS addresses a number of the limitations of the AECC definition. The approach of combining consensus discussions with empirical evaluation may serve as a model to create more accurate, evidence-based, critical illness syndrome definitions and to better inform clinical care, research, and health services planning.
7,731 citations
University of Milan1, University of Toronto2, St. Michael's GAA, Sligo3, University of Paris4, Paris Diderot University5, University Health Network6, St. Michael's Hospital7, Australian National University8, Uppsala University9, Queen's University Belfast10, Sapienza University of Rome11, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre12, Harvard University13, Leipzig University14
TL;DR: Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning, which indicates the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS.
Abstract: IMPORTANCE Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES To evaluate intensive ...
3,259 citations
TL;DR: In patients with nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with high-flow oxygen, standard oxygen, or noninvasive ventilation did not result in significantly different intubation rates, and there was a significant difference in favor of high- flow oxygen in 90-day mortality.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Whether noninvasive ventilation should be administered in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated. Therapy with high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula may offer an alternative in patients with hypoxemia. METHODS We performed a multicenter, open-label trial in which we randomly assigned patients without hypercapnia who had acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less to high-flow oxygen therapy, standard oxygen therapy delivered through a face mask, or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients intubated at day 28; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality in the intensive care unit and at 90 days and the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. RESULTS A total of 310 patients were included in the analyses. The intubation rate (primary outcome) was 38% (40 of 106 patients) in the high-flow–oxygen group, 47% (44 of 94) in the standard group, and 50% (55 of 110) in the noninvasive-ventilation group (P = 0.18 for all comparisons). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was significantly higher in the high-flow–oxygen group (24±8 days, vs. 22±10 in the standard-oxygen group and 19±12 in the noninvasive-ventilation group; P = 0.02 for all comparisons). The hazard ratio for death at 90 days was 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 3.99) with standard oxygen versus high-flow oxygen (P = 0.046) and 2.50 (95% CI, 1.31 to 4.78) with noninvasive ventilation versus high-flow oxygen (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS In patients with nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with high-flow oxygen, standard oxygen, or noninvasive ventilation did not result in significantly different intubation rates. There was a significant difference in favor of high-flow oxygen in 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique Interregional 2010 of the French Ministry of Health; FLORALI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01320384.)
1,571 citations
TL;DR: The probable causes of mechanical ventilation injury and ways to prevent it are reviewed.
Abstract: Mechanical ventilation may cause injury to the ventilated lung. This article reviews the probable causes of such injury and ways to prevent it.
1,437 citations
TL;DR: It is hypothesize that the different COVID-19 patterns found at presentation in the emergency department depend on the interaction between three factors: the severity of the infection, the host response, physiological reserve and comorbidities; the ventilatory responsiveness of the patient to hypoxemia; and the time elapsed between the onset of the disease and the observation in the hospital.
Abstract: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign panel recently recommended that “mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 should be managed similarly to other patients with acute respiratory failure in the ICU [1].” Yet, COVID-19 pneumonia [2], despite falling in most of the circumstances under the Berlin definition of ARDS [3], is a specific disease, whose distinctive features are severe hypoxemia often associated with near normal respiratory system compliance (more than 50% of the 150 patients measured by the authors and further confirmed by several colleagues in Northern Italy). This remarkable combination is almost never seen in severe ARDS. These severely hypoxemic patients despite sharing a single etiology (SARS-CoV-2) may present quite differently from one another: normally breathing (“silent” hypoxemia) or remarkably dyspneic; quite responsive to nitric oxide or not; deeply hypocapnic or normo/hypercapnic; and either responsive to prone position or not. Therefore, the same disease actually presents itself with impressive non-uniformity. Based on detailed observation of several cases and discussions with colleagues treating these patients, we hypothesize that the different COVID-19 patterns found at presentation in the emergency department depend on the interaction between three factors: (1) the severity of the infection, the host response, physiological reserve and comorbidities; (2) the ventilatory responsiveness of the patient to hypoxemia; (3) the time elapsed between the onset of the disease and the observation in the hospital. The interaction between these factors leads to the development of a time-related disease spectrum within two primary “phenotypes”: Type L, characterized by Low elastance (i.e., high compliance), Low ventilation-to-perfusion ratio, Low lung weight and Low recruitability and Type H, characterized by High elastance, High right-toleft shunt, High lung weight and High recruitability.
1,378 citations