High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Severe Hypoxemia: Oxygenation Response and Outcome in Patients with COVID-19.

Rationale: The "Berlin definition" of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) does not allow inclusion of patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, several articles have proposed that criteria for defining ARDS should be broadened to allow inclusion of patients receiving HFNO. Objectives: To compare the proportion of patients fulfilling ARDS criteria during HFNO and soon after intubation, and 28-day mortality between patients treated exclusively with HFNO and patients transitioned from HFNO to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: From previously published studies, we analyzed patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who had PaO2/FiO2 of ⩽300 while treated with ⩾40 L/min HFNO, or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with positive end-expiratory pressure of ⩾5 cm H2O (comparator). In patients transitioned from HFNO/NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), we compared ARDS severity during HFNO/NIV and soon after IMV. We compared 28-day mortality in patients treated exclusively with HFNO/NIV versus patients transitioned to IMV. Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 184 and 131 patients receiving HFNO or NIV, respectively. A total of 112 HFNO and 69 NIV patients transitioned to IMV. Of those, 104 (92.9%) patients on HFNO and 66 (95.7%) on NIV continued to have PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 under IMV. Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on HFNO was 4.2% (3/72), whereas in patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV, it was 28.6% (32/112) (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on NIV was 1.6% (1/62), whereas in patients who transitioned from NIV to IMV, it was 44.9% (31/69) (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 19.0% (35/184) and 24.4% (32/131) for HFNO and NIV, respectively (P = 0.2479). Conclusions: Broadening the ARDS definition to include patients on HFNO with PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 may identify patients at earlier stages of disease but with lower mortality.

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulses in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for three consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need for supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 112 (75.4%) out of 151 patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 (75.2%) of 150 in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups (15 days, 95% CI 13.0-17.0 days and 16 days, 95% CI 13.8-18.2 days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528). No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to intensive care unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.74-2.16; p=0.176) or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Feasibility and clinical impact of out-of-ICU noninvasive respiratory support in patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 outbreak spread rapidly in Italy and the lack of intensive care unit (ICU) beds soon became evident, forcing the application of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) outside the ICU, raising concerns over staff contamination. We aimed to analyse the safety of the hospital staff and the feasibility and outcomes of NRS applied to patients outside the ICU. METHODS: In this observational study, data from 670 consecutive patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 referred to pulmonology units in nine hospitals between March 1 and May 10, 2020 were analysed. Data collected included medication, mode and usage of NRS (i.e. high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive ventilation (NIV)), length of stay in hospital, endotracheal intubation (ETI) and deaths. RESULTS: 42 (11.1%) healthcare workers tested positive for infection, but only three of them required hospitalisation. Data are reported for all patients (69.3% male), whose mean±sd age was 68±13 years. The arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio at baseline was 152±79, and the majority (49.3%) of patients were treated with CPAP. The overall unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was 26.9%, with 16%, 30% and 30% for HFNC, CPAP and NIV, respectively, while the total ETI rate was 27%, with 29%, 25% and 28%, respectively; the relative probability of death was not related to the NRS used after adjustment for confounders. ETI and length of stay were not different among the groups. Mortality rate increased with age and comorbidity class progression. CONCLUSIONS: The application of NRS outside the ICU is feasible and associated with favourable outcomes. Nonetheless, it was associated with a risk of staff contamination.

COVID-19 Pneumonia and ROX index: Time to set a new threshold for patients admitted outside the ICU.

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is used to treat acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) even outside the ICU and the ROX index (pulse oximetry/fraction of inspired oxygen/respiratory rate) may predict HFNC failure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was therefore to verify whether the ROX index is an accurate predictor of HFNC failure for COVID-19 patients treated outside the intensive care unit (ICU) and to evaluate the validity of the previously suggested threshold. DESIGN: Multicenter study. Retrospective observational analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: 3 centres specialized in non-invasive respiratory support (Buenos Aires, Argentina; Bolzano and Treviso, Italy). Patients treated outside the ICU were analysed MEASUREMENTS: The variables to calculate the ROX index were collected during the first day of therapy at 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours and then recorded every 24 hours. HFNC failure was defined as escalation of respiratory support to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 35 (29%) patients failed HFNC and required intubation. ROC analysis identified the 12-hour ROX index as the best predictor of intubation with an AUC of 0.7916[CI 95% 0.6905-0.8927] and the best threshold to be 5.99[Specificity 96% Sensitivity 62%]. In the survival analysis, a ROX value <5.99 was associated with an increased risk of failure (p = 0008 log - rank test). The threshold of 4,9 identified by Roca as the best predictor in non-COVID patients, was not able to discriminate between success and failure (p = 0.4 log-rank test) in our patients. CONCLUSIONS: ROX index may be useful in guiding the clinicians in their decision to intubate patients, especially in patients with moderate ARF, treated therefore outside the ICU. Indeed, it also demonstrates a different threshold value than reported for non-COVID patients, possibly related to the different mechanisms of hypoxia.

Delirium incidence and risk factors in patients undergoing non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a multicenter observational trial.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) still has high failure rate when used for de novo acute respiratory failure (ARF). Delirium may impact the outcome, however data regarding its incidence, timing of occurrence and clinical predictors in this subset of patients are scarce. METHODS: Consecutive patients with de novo ARF subjected to NIV were recruited in 10 Italian Respiratory Intensive Care Units (RICUs) and Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Demographics and clinical features, including tolerance to interface and NIV setting were recorded on admission and during stay, whereas delirium onset and type was assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU (CAM-ICU)-7 scale and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) twice/per day up to a week. The association between clinical variables and the occurrence of delirium and its influence on NIV failure and other clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-two out of 90 enrolled patients (36%) developed delirium over seven days upon admission; median time to onset was 48 hours (24-60). Older age (OR=2.7 [1.9-9], P=0.01), the presence of cancer OR=3.7 [2-5.4], P=0.002), sepsis (OR=1.7 [1.1-3.4], P=0.01), SOFA Score (OR=1.8 [1.1-3.1], P=0.01), low tolerance to interface (OR=3.2 [2.1-5], P=0.002), use of helmet (OR=1.9 [1.2-4.3] P=0.04), and higher PRE-DELIRIC (OR=3.5 [1.3-15], P=0.03) and BORG (OR=1.7 [1.1-4.6], P=0.02] scores were significantly associated with delirium. Delirium had high risk for NIV failure (HR=3.5 95% CI: [1.4-8.6], P=0.0002) and it significantly associated with longer RICU/ICU stay and higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Delirium onset in acute hypoxic patients undergoing NIV is frequent and negatively affects the outcome. Multiple related clinical factors should be addressed early on admission to prevent the delirium-related risk of NIV failure in these patients.

Standardizing PaO2 for PaCO2 in P/F ratio predicts in-hospital mortality in acute respiratory failure due to Covid-19: A pilot prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Up to fifteen percent of patients with novel pandemic coronavirus disease (Covid-19) have acute respiratory failure (ARF). Ratio between arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), P/F, is currently used as a marker of ARF severity in Covid-19. P/F does not reflect the respiratory efforts made by patients to maintain arterial blood oxygenation, such as tachypnea and hyperpnea, leading to hypocapnia. Standard PaO2, the value of PaO2 adjusted for arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) of the subject, better reflects the pathophysiology of hypoxemic ARF. We hypothesized that the ratio between standard PaO2 over FiO2 (STP/F) better predicts Covid-19 ARF severity compared to P/F. METHODS: Aim of this pilot prospectic observational study was to observe differences between STP/F and P/F in predicting outcome failure, defined as need of invasive mechanical ventilation and/or deaths in Covid-19 ARF. Accuracy was calculated using Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis and areas under the ROC curve (AUROC) were compared. RESULTS: 349 consecutive subjects admitted to our respiratory wards due to Covid-19 ARF were enrolled. STP/F was accurate to predict mortality and superior to P/F with, respectively, AUROC 0.710 versus 0.688, p = 0.012.Both STP/F and PF were accurate to predict outcome failure (AUROC respectively of 0.747 and 0.742, p = 0.590). DISCUSSION: This is the first study assessing the role of STP/F in describing severity of ARF in Covid-19. According to results, STP/F is accurate and superior to P/F in predicting in-hospital mortality.