Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Шоу: 20 | 50 | 100
Результаты 1 - 20 de 482
Фильтр
Добавить фильтры

Годовой диапазон
1.
Muscle Nerve ; 62(2): 254-258, 2020 08.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2209145

Реферат

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly become a global pandemic, but little is known about its potential impact on patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: We studied the clinical course of COVID-19 in five hospitalized patients with autoimmune MG (four with acetylcholine receptor antibodies, one with muscle-specific tyrosine kinase antibodies) between April 1, 2020-April 30-2020. RESULTS: Two patients required intubation for hypoxemic respiratory failure, whereas one required significant supplemental oxygen. One patient with previously stable MG had myasthenic exacerbation. One patient treated with tocilizumab for COVID-19 was successfully extubated. Two patients were treated for MG with intravenous immunoglobulin without thromboembolic complications. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the clinical course and outcomes in patients with MG and COVID-19 are highly variable. Further large studies are needed to define best practices and determinants of outcomes in this unique population.


Тема - темы
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Hypoxia/therapy , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , Myasthenia Gravis/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Adult , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Intubation, Intratracheal , Male , Middle Aged , Myasthenia Gravis/complications , Myasthenia Gravis/immunology , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Receptor Protein-Tyrosine Kinases/immunology , Receptors, Cholinergic/immunology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , SARS-CoV-2
2.
BMC Pulm Med ; 22(1): 227, 2022 Jun 13.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1885300

Реферат

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to explore the early predictive value of the respiratory rate oxygenation (ROX) index modified by PaO2 (mROX) in high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients with acute hypoxemia respiratory failure (AHRF). METHOD: Seventy-five patients with AHRF treated with HFNC were retrospectively reviewed. Respiratory parameters at baseline and 2 h after HFNC initiation were analyzed. The predictive value of the ROX (ratio of pulse oximetry/FIO2 to respiratory rate) and mROX (ratio of arterial oxygen /FIO2 to respiratory rate) indices with two variations by adding heart rate to each index (ROX-HR and mROX-HR) was evaluated. RESULTS: HFNC therapy failed in 24 patients, who had significantly higher intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and longer ICU stay. Both the ROX and mROX indices at 2 h after HFNC initiation can predict the risk of intubation after HFNC. Two hours after HFNC initiation, the mROX index had a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for predicting HFNC success than the ROX index. Besides, baseline mROX index of greater than 7.1 showed a specificity of 100% for HFNC success. CONCLUSION: The mROX index may be a suitable predictor of HFNC therapy outcomes at the early phase in patients with AHRF.


Тема - темы
Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Blood Gas Analysis , Cannula , Humans , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Rate , Retrospective Studies
3.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 28(6): 660-666, 2022 Dec 01.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2152245

Реферат

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the clinical problem and noninvasive treatments of hypoxemia in critically-ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia and describe recent advances in evidence supporting bedside decision making. RECENT FINDINGS: High-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation, along with awake prone positioning are potentially helpful therapies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy has been widely implemented as a form of oxygen support supported by prepandemic randomized controlled trials showing possible benefit over noninvasive ventilation. Given the sheer volume of patients, noninvasive ventilation was often required, and based on a well conducted randomized controlled trial there was a developing role for helmet-interface noninvasive. Coupled with noninvasive supports, the use of awake prone positioning demonstrated physiological benefits, but randomized controlled trial data did not demonstrate clear outcome superiority. SUMMARY: The use of noninvasive oxygen strategies and our understanding of the proposed mechanisms are evolving. Variability in patient severity and physiology may dictate a personalized approach to care. High-flow nasal oxygen may be paired with awake and spontaneously breathing prone-positioning to optimize oxygen and lung mechanics but requires further insight before widely applying to clinical practice.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Hypoxia/therapy , Oxygen , Critical Care , Lung , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0278145, 2022.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140687

Реферат

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a highly contagious pathogenic viral infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread rapidly and remains a challenge to global public health. COVID-19 patients manifest various symptoms from mild to severe cases with poor clinical outcomes. Prognostic values of novel markers, including neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and C-reactive protein to lymphocyte ratio (CLR) calculated from routine laboratory parameters have recently been reported to predict severe cases; however, whether this investigation can guide oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients remains unclear. In this study, we assessed the ability of these markers in screening and predicting types of oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients. The retrospective data of 474 COVID-19 patients were categorized into mild and severe cases and grouped according to the types of oxygen therapy requirement, including noninvasive oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula and invasive mechanical ventilator. Among the novel markers, the ROC curve analysis indicated a screening cutoff of CRP ≥ 30.0 mg/L, NLR ≥ 3.0 and CLR ≥ 25 in predicting the requirement of any type of oxygen support. The NLR and CLR with increasing cut-off values have discriminative power with high accuracy and specificity for more effective oxygen therapy with a high-flow nasal cannula (NLR ≥ 6.0 and CLR ≥ 60) and mechanical ventilator (NLR ≥ 8.0 and CLR ≥ 80). Our study thus identifies potential markers to differentiate the suitable management of oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients at an earlier time for improving disease outcomes with limited respiratory support resources.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Oxygen , Retrospective Studies , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Biomarkers , C-Reactive Protein
5.
Respir Res ; 23(1): 315, 2022 Nov 15.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119361

Реферат

BACKGROUND: Respiratory symptoms are associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. However, the impacts of upper and lower respiratory symptoms on COVID-19 outcomes in the same population have not been compared. The objective of this study was to characterize upper and lower respiratory symptoms and compare their impacts on outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study; the database from the Japan COVID-19 Task Force was used. A total of 3314 COVID-19 patients were included in the study, and the data on respiratory symptoms were collected. The participants were classified according to their respiratory symptoms (Group 1: no respiratory symptoms, Group 2: only upper respiratory symptoms, Group 3: only lower respiratory symptoms, and Group 4: both upper and lower respiratory symptoms). The impacts of upper and lower respiratory symptoms on the clinical outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with poor clinical outcomes, including the need for oxygen supplementation via high-flow oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or death. RESULTS: Of the 3314 COVID-19 patients, 605, 1331, 1229, and 1149 were classified as Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4, respectively. In univariate analysis, patients in Group 2 had the best clinical outcomes among all groups (odds ratio [OR]: 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11-0.39), while patients in Group 3 had the worst outcomes (OR: 3.27, 95% CI: 2.43-4.40). Group 3 patients had the highest incidence of pneumonia, other complications due to secondary infections, and thrombosis during the clinical course. CONCLUSIONS: Upper and lower respiratory tract symptoms had vastly different impacts on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy
6.
JAMA ; 328(12): 1212-1222, 2022 09 27.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2058988

Реферат

Importance: The benefit of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (high-flow oxygen) in terms of intubation and mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is controversial. Objective: To determine whether the use of high-flow oxygen, compared with standard oxygen, could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted in intensive care units (ICUs). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial was conducted in 34 ICUs in France and included 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen equal to or below 200 mm Hg. It was an ancillary trial of the ongoing original SOHO randomized clinical trial, which was designed to include patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from all causes. Patients were enrolled from January to December 2021; final follow-up occurred on March 5, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (n = 357) or standard oxygen delivered through a nonrebreathing mask initially set at a 10-L/min minimum (n = 354). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at day 28. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients requiring intubation, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 90, mortality and length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. Results: Among the 782 randomized patients, 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; 214 women [30%]). The mortality rate at day 28 was 10% (36/357) with high-flow oxygen and 11% (40/354) with standard oxygen (absolute difference, -1.2% [95% CI, -5.8% to 3.4%]; P = .60). Of 13 prespecified secondary outcomes, 12 showed no significant difference including in length of stay and mortality in the ICU and in mortality up until day 90. The intubation rate was significantly lower with high-flow oxygen than with standard oxygen (45% [160/357] vs 53% [186/354]; absolute difference, -7.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -0.4%]; P = .04). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was not significantly different between groups (median, 28 [IQR, 11-28] vs 23 [IQR, 10-28] days; absolute difference, 0.5 days [95% CI, -7.7 to 9.1]; P = .07). The most common adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, occurring in 58% (93/160) in the high-flow oxygen group and 53% (99/186) in the standard oxygen group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, compared with standard oxygen therapy, did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04468126.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Masks , Middle Aged , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
7.
Pediatrics ; 150(4)2022 10 01.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2054482
8.
JAMA ; 328(11): 1063-1072, 2022 09 20.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2047353

Реферат

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.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency , Acute Disease , Barotrauma/etiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/mortality , Hypoxia/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
9.
Respir Investig ; 60(6): 779-786, 2022 Nov.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2031662

Реферат

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid widespread use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, its indications and appropriate use as perceived by physicians remain poorly known. METHODS: In September 2021, we sent a questionnaire to each respiratory physician from 15 institutions in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan. In this survey, we compared the perceptions of HFNC indications and interventions during implementation to those of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Furthermore, this study examined concerns about SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress experienced among respondents. RESULTS: Of the 140 respiratory physicians contacted, 87 (62.1%) completed the survey. The results indicate that 96.5% of the respondents agreed with the indication of HFNC for COVID-19, whereas only 13.7% agreed with NIV. The physicians reported that patients with HFNC had a lower frequency of sustained sedation, physical restraint, and implementation in the ICU than that of patients with NIV and IMV. The HFNC was introduced as a respiratory modality following conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with COVID-19, regardless of full or do-not-intubate codes. Additionally, they reported that patients with COVID-19 switched from COT to HFNC significantly earlier than those without COVID-19. Simultaneously, this survey revealed persistent concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress (47.1% and 53.3%, respectively) among respiratory physicians during HFNC use. CONCLUSION: Clinically, HFNC is considered useful for COVID-19 patients by most respiratory physicians. However, HFNC remains a concern for COVID-19 spread and psychological distress among several respiratory physicians, indicating the need for urgent action.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Cannula , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Oxygen , Pulmonologists
10.
Prague Med Rep ; 123(3): 140-165, 2022.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2030374

Реферат

Before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged, proning had been demonstrated to improve oxygenation in those with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and be performed in non-intensive care settings. This benefit was further exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to awake prone positioning (APP). We assessed the efficacy of routine APP versus standard care in preventing death and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in non-intubated hypoxic COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and medRxiv databases were used from January 1st, 2020, to January 15th, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Routine APP group were encouraged to be self-prone, whereas the standard care group received care according to local clinical practice and allowed APP crossover as rescue therapy. We included eight COVID-19 RCTs assessing 809 APP vs. 822 standard care patients. APP group had less IMV requirement (26.5% vs. 30.9%; OR - odds ratio 0.77; P=0.03) than the standard care group, with subgroup analysis showing greater benefit (32.5% vs. 39.1%; OR 0.75; P=0.02) for those mainly requiring oxygen support of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The time to IMV initiation was similar (mean 8.3 vs. 10.0 days; P=0.66) for patients requiring NIMV and HFNC. Patients mainly receiving supplemental oxygen and non-rebreather masks had improved oxygenation parameters, although not statistically significant. Other outcomes involving all-cause hospital mortality, hospital and ICU (intensive care unit) length of stay, and adverse events were comparable. APP appeared to be an important modality for reducing IMV requirements, especially in those requiring NIMV and HFNC.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Oxygen , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Prone Position , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Wakefulness
13.
J Intensive Care Med ; 37(11): 1493-1503, 2022 Nov.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2020861

Реферат

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been considered as a feasible treatment for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of APP remain uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effect of APP on intubation rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: Relevant studies published from January 1, 2020, to June 17, 2022, were systematically searched. The primary outcomes were the intubation rate and mortality; the secondary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 5746 identified publications, 22 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis (N = 5146 patients). In comparison to the non-APP group, APP could decrease the intubation rates (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.83; P = .001), particularly in the subgroup of the daily median duration of APP > 8 h and in the subgroup of receiving high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Patients treated with APP were associated with lower mortality rates (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45-0.81; P = .0008), but no mortality benefit was found in the APP group in the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). No significant difference was found in the incidence of adverse events between the groups (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.75-1.71; P = .56). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that APP could be an effective strategy to avoid intubation without detrimental effects in non-intubated patients with COVID-19, especially for patients requiring HFNC or NIV, and the daily APP duration with the target of minimally eight hours was suggested. In the subgroup of RCTs, the pooled results did not demonstrate any benefit of APP on mortality. Given the limited number of RCTs, further high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm the results. INPLASY REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY2021110037.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Prone Position , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Wakefulness
14.
J Trop Pediatr ; 68(4)2022 06 06.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2018106

Реферат

AIMS: The influenza virus is an infectious disease with acute respiratory tract infections, caused secondary bacterial infections and death. In this study, we aimed to determine which predictors were associated with the need for high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and transition to intensive care for influenza virus and also to compare single viral pathogens with multiple ones. METHODS: Inpatients under the age of 5 with influenza virus-related respiratory tract infections between November 2015 and March 2019 were included in the study. Demographic features, comorbidities, symptoms, secondary bacterial infection, need for HFNC and pediatric intensive care unit and respiratory support system, length of hospital stay, polymerase chain reaction tests were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were included in the study. It was determined that 53.8% of the cases were male and 84.9% were under the age of 2. Comorbidities were present in 50.5% of the cases. Secondary bacterial pneumonia developed in 56.9% of the cases. Patients with secondary bacterial pneumonia had higher PICU need, HFNC need and hospital stay (p = 0.014, p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively). Patients with comorbidity had longer hospital stays and a higher need for HFNC (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, it was determined that especially comorbidity and secondary bacterial infection aggravated the clinical treatment of hospitalized patients. Therefore, it was concluded that patients with comorbidity should be followed closely and secondary bacterial pneumonia should be recognized and treated early.


Тема - темы
Bacterial Infections , Coinfection , Influenza, Human , Respiratory Tract Infections , Cannula , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Influenza, Human/complications , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/therapy , Male , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/etiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/therapy , Retrospective Studies
15.
Eur J Pediatr ; 181(11): 3931-3936, 2022 Nov.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2014145

Реферат

After the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we noticed a marked increase in high-flow nasal cannula use for bronchiolitis. This study aims to report the percentage of children treated with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in various seasons. The secondary outcomes were admissions for bronchiolitis, virological results, hospital burden, and NICU/PICU need. We conducted a retrospective study in four Italian hospitals, examining the medical records of all infants (< 12 months) hospitalized for bronchiolitis in the last four winter seasons (1 September-31 March 2018-2022). In the 2021-2022 winter season, 66% of admitted children received HFNC versus 23%, 38%, and 35% in the previous 3 years. A total of 876 patients were hospitalized in the study periods. In 2021-2022, 300 infants were hospitalized for bronchiolitis, 22 in 2020-2021, 259 in 2019-2020, and 295 in 2018-2019. The percentage of patients needing intensive care varied from 28.7% to 18%, 22%, and 15% in each of the four considered periods (p < 0.05). Seventy-seven percent of children received oxygen in the 2021-2022 winter; vs 50%, 63%, and 55% (p < 0.01) in the previous 3 years. NIV/CPAP was used in 23%, 9%, 16%, and 12%, respectively. In 2021-2020, 2% of patients were intubated; 0 in 2020-2021, 3% in 2019-2020, and 1% in 2018-2019. CONCLUSION: This study shows a marked increase in respiratory support and intensive care admissions this last winter. While these severity indexes were all driven by medical choices, more reliable indexes such as intubation rate and length of stay did not change. Therefore, we suggest that there is a more aggressive treatment attitude rather than a more severe disease. WHAT IS KNOWN: • COVID-19 pandemic deeply impacted bronchiolitis epidemiology, reducing hospitalizations to onetenth. In the 2021-2022 winter, bronchiolitis resurged to pre-pandemic numbers in Europe. WHAT IS NEW: • Bronchiolitis hospitalization rose much faster in the 2021-2022 winter period, peaking at a higher level. Respiratory supports and high-flow nasal cannula increased significantly compared to the pre-pandemic era.


Тема - темы
Bronchiolitis , COVID-19 , Physicians , Attitude of Health Personnel , Bronchiolitis/epidemiology , Bronchiolitis/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Child , Humans , Infant , Oxygen , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Respir Care ; 67(11): 1443-1451, 2022 11.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1988239

Реферат

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pneumonia has been responsible for many ICU patients' admissions with hypoxemic respiratory failure, and oxygen therapy is one of the pillars of its treatment. The current pandemic scenario has limited the availability of ICU beds and access to invasive ventilation equipment. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can reduce the need for orotracheal intubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy, providing better results than noninvasive respiratory support. However, HFNC use has been controversial due to concerns about the benefits and risks of aerosol dispersion. In this context, we evaluated the performance of the HFNC therapy in patients with COVID-19 and investigated factors that can predict favorable responses. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted, which included hospitalized adult subjects with COVID-19 in the respiratory wards who needed oxygen therapy. Clinical and laboratory parameters were collected to compare HFNC therapy use and the outcomes. RESULTS: In 6 months, 128 subjects were included and the success rate of HFNC therapy was 53%. Logistic regression analysis showed that the Charlson comorbidity score, need for oxygen flow, [Formula: see text], and breathing frequency predicted therapy failure. The mortality rate increased among the non-responders versus the responders (47% vs 3%), 48% of failure occurred in the first 24 h of the HFNC therapy. A ROX (respiratory frequency - oxygenation) index > 4.98 in 6 h and > 4.53 in 24 h predicted success of the HFNC therapy with an area under the curve of 0.7, and a ROX index < 3.47 predicted failure with 88% of specificity. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC in the subjects with COVID-19 was associated with reduced mortality and improved oxygenation in the subjects with respiratory distress. Close monitoring of specific parameters defines eligible patients and rapidly identifies those in need of invasive ventilatory support.


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Cannula , Humans , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Oxygen
20.
Ther Adv Respir Dis ; 16: 17534666221113663, 2022.
Статья в английский | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1950910

Реферат

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are important treatment approaches for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the differential impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effects of HFNC versus NIV (interface or mode) on clinical outcomes of COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) of HFNC and NIV in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF published in English before February 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the mortality rate, and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation [ventilator-free day (VFD)]. RESULTS: In all, 23 studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 5354 patients were included. The mortality rate was higher in the NIV group than the HFNC group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.84, p = 0.0008, I2 = 60%]; however, in this subgroup, no significant difference in mortality was observed in the NIV-helmet group (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.63-2.32, p = 0.57, I2 = 0%) or NIV-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) group (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.51-1.17, p = 0.23, I2 = 65%) relative to the HFNC group. There were no differences in intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or days free from invasive mechanical ventilation (VFD) between the HFNC and NIV groups. CONCLUSION: Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of helmet or CPAP group. Future large sample RCTs are necessary to prove our findings. REGISTRATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022321997).


Тема - темы
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Cannula , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
Критерии поиска