Search

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.

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 H(2)O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H(2)O) 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

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of noninvasive oxygenation strategies (NIOS) in treating COVID-19 disease is unknown. We conducted a prospective observational study to assess the rate of NIOS failure in subjects treated in the ICU for hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. METHODS: Patients receiving first-line treatment NIOS for hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 in the ICU of a university hospital were included in this study; laboratory data were collected upon arrival, and 28-d outcome was recorded. After propensity score matching based on Simplified Acute Physiology (SAPS) II score, age, P aO 2 /F IO 2 and P aCO 2 at arrival, the NIOS failure rate in subjects with COVID-19 was compared to a previously published cohort who received NIOS during hypoxemic respiratory failure due to other causes. RESULTS: A total of 85 subjects received first-line treatment with NIOS. The most frequently used methods were helmet noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula; of these, 52 subjects (61%) required endotracheal intubation. Independent factors associated with NIOS failure were SAPS II score (P = .009) and serum lactate dehydrogenase at enrollment (P = .02); the combination of SAPS II score ≥ 33 with serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 405 units/L at ICU admission had 91% specificity in predicting the need for endotracheal intubation. In the propensity-matched cohorts (54 pairs), subjects with COVID-19 showed higher risk of NIOS failure than those with other causes of hypoxemic respiratory failure (59% vs 35%, P = .02), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2 (95% CI 1.1–3.6, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to hypoxemic respiratory failure due to other etiologies, subjects with COVID-19 who were treated with NIOS in the ICU were burdened by a 2-fold higher risk of failure. Subjects with a SAPS II score ≥ 33 and serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 405 units/L represent the population with the greatest risk.

Background Whether respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure is different from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is unclear. We conducted a single-center study to describe respiratory mechanics and response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in COVID-19 ARDS and to compare COVID-19 patients to matched-control subjects with ARDS from other causes. Methods Thirty consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Rome, Italy, and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were enrolled within 24 h from endotracheal intubation. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and ventilatory ratio were measured at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O. A single-breath derecruitment maneuver was performed to assess recruitability. After 1:1 matching based on PaO2/FiO2, FiO2, PEEP, and tidal volume, COVID-19 patients were compared to subjects affected by ARDS of other etiologies who underwent the same procedures in a previous study. Results Thirty COVID-19 patients were successfully matched with 30 ARDS from other etiologies. At low PEEP, median [25th–75th percentiles] PaO2/FiO2 in the two groups was 119 mmHg [101–142] and 116 mmHg [87–154]. Average compliance (41 ml/cmH2O [32–52] vs. 36 ml/cmH2O [27–42], p = 0.045) and ventilatory ratio (2.1 [1.7–2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.4–2.1], p = 0.032) were slightly higher in COVID-19 patients. Inter-individual variability (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of compliance was 36% in COVID-19 patients and 31% in other ARDS. In COVID-19 patients, PaO2/FiO2 was linearly correlated with respiratory system compliance (r = 0.52 p = 0.003). High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 in both cohorts, but more remarkably in COVID-19 patients (p = 0.005). Recruitability was not different between cohorts (p = 0.39) and was highly inter-individually variable (72% in COVID-19 patients and 64% in ARDS from other causes). In COVID-19 patients, recruitability was independent from oxygenation and respiratory mechanics changes due to PEEP. Conclusions Early after establishment of mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 patients follow ARDS physiology, with compliance reduction related to the degree of hypoxemia, and inter-individually variable respiratory mechanics and recruitability. Physiological differences between ARDS from COVID-19 and other causes appear small.