Search

Objective: To evaluate the effects of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) on inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19., Methods: A randomized blinded pilot study was carried out with 21 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 who received 14 sessions of active (a-taVNS) or sham taVNS (s-taVNS). The level of interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-10 (IL-10), cortisol, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in plasma and clinical evolution pre- and post-intervention were evaluated. The memory and attention levels were evaluated 14 days after the end of the treatment., Results: After treatment, significant intragroup differences were found in the CRP (p = 0.01), IL-6 (p = 0.01), and cortisol (p = 0.01) levels; however, in the comparison between the groups, only the CRP level was statistically lower for the a-taVNS (p = 0.04). The impression of improvement in memory and attention was greater in the a-taVNS than in the s-taVNS (p = 0.01, p = 0.04, respectively). There was no difference between the other clinical outcomes., Conclusions: taVNS is a viable and safe intervention in the acute care of patients with COVID-19, which can modulate their inflammatory profile and improve cognitive symptoms. However, improvements in overall clinical outcomes were not detected. Larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to confirm the anti-inflammatory and clinical effects of taVNS in patients with COVID-19., Trials Registry: The Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (RBR-399t4g5).

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) – using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator. Material and methods: We conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale. Results: The study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (p = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days). Conclusions: This single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]