Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure by covid-19: A retrospective study of the feasibility, safety and outcomes

Abstract

Background Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are the main forms of treatment for acute respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect, safety, and applicability of the NIV and HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19. Methods In this retrospective study, we monitored the effect of NIV and HFNC on the SpO 2 and respiratory rate before, during, and after treatment, length of stay, rates of endotracheal intubation, and mortality in patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19. Additionally, data regarding RT-PCR from physiotherapists who were directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19. Results 62.2% of patients were treated with HFNC. ROX index increased during and after NIV and HFNC treatment (P < 0.05). SpO 2 increased during NIV treatment (P < 0.05), but was not maintained after treatment (P = 0.17). In addition, there was no difference in the respiratory rate during or after the NIV (P = 0.95) or HFNC (P = 0.60) treatment. The mortality rate was 35.7% for NIV vs 21.4% for HFNC (P = 0.45), while the total endotracheal intubation rate was 57.1% for NIV vs 69.6% for HFNC (P = 0.49). Two adverse events occurred during treatment with NIV and eight occurred during treatment with HFNC. There was no difference in the physiotherapists who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 ones (P = 0.81). Conclusion The application of NIV and HFNC in the critical care unit is feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. In addition, there was no increase in the infection of physiotherapists with SARS-CoV-2.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…After excluding duplicates and evaluating the full texts of articles, we identified 23 eligible studies 9 , 11 – 32 (3 RCTs, 20 , 24 , 26 8 prospective observational studies, 13 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 25 , 28 , 30 and 12 retrospective observational studies). 9 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 21 , 23 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 The process of searching and screening is described in Figure 1 . The main characteristics of the articles included in the meta-analysis are shown in Table 1 .…”

“…Two studies were considered to have an unclear risk of bias. The 20 observational 9 , 11 – 19 , 21 – 23 , 25 , 27 – 32 studies were assessed using the NOS checklist, and the results are shown in the Table 2 . All studies were of medium quality (⩾5 stars) or above, and 10 were considered high quality (⩾8 stars).…”

“…A total of 5354 patients participated in the 23 studies 9 , 11 – 32 of the present meta-analysis, all of whom were adult COVID-19 patients. The patients were admitted to different hospital settings and received noninvasive respiratory support at the time of admission.…”

“…The patients were admitted to different hospital settings and received noninvasive respiratory support at the time of admission. In 4 studies, 11 , 17 , 20 , 25 a helmet was applied, in 11 studies, 9 , 13 – 15 , 18 , 19 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 a face mask was used, 1 study 22 reported applying both a helmet and a face mask, 7 studies 12 , 16 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 31 did not report whether a helmet or a facemask was used, in 6 studies, 9 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 27 , 29 BiPAP was applied, 7 studies 11 , 17 – 19 , 25 , 26 , 30 featured CPAP, 4 studies 14 – 16 , 23 reported applying both BiPAP and CPAP, and 6 studies 12 , 13 , 21 , 28 , 31 , 32 did not report whether they applied BiPAP or CPAP ( Table 1…”

“… 8 HFNC and NIV are the main forms of treatment for AHRF and associated with favorable outcomes in COVID-19 patients. 9 Many recent studies have compared the effects of HFNC and NIV in COVID-19 patients, but the use of HFNC versus NIV for COVID-19-related AHRF remains controversial. 5 , 6 Current clinical practice is based on prior experience, personal medical opinion, and local availability.…”