Clinical features and 28-day mortality predictors of vaccinated patients admitted to a COVID-19 ICU hub in Italy.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination has been proved to be effective in preventing hospitalization and illness progression, even though data on mortality of vaccinated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are conflicting. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of vaccinated patients admitted to ICU according to their immunization cycle and to outline the risk factors for 28-day mortality. This observational study included adult patients admitted to ICU for acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to SARS-CoV-2 and who had received at least one dose of vaccine. RESULTS: Fully vaccination was defined as a complete primary cycle from < 120 days or a booster dose from > 14 days. All the other patients were named partially vaccinated. One-hundred sixty patients (91 fully and 69 partially vaccinated) resulted eligible, showing a 28-day mortality rate of 51.9%. Compared to partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated were younger (69 [60-77.5] vs. 74 [66-79] years, p 0.029), more frequently immunocompromised (39.56% vs. 14.39%, p 0.003), and affected by at least one comorbidity (90.11% vs 78.26%, p 0.045), mainly chronic kidney disease (CKD) (36.26% vs 20.29%, p 0.035). At multivariable analysis, independent predictors of 28-day mortality were as follows: older age [OR 1.05 (CI 95% 1.01-1.08), p 0.005], history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [OR 3.05 (CI 95% 1.28-7.30), p 0.012], immunosuppression [OR 3.70 (CI 95% 1.63-8.40), p 0.002], and admission respiratory and hemodynamic status [PaO2/FiO2 and septic shock: OR 0.99 (CI 95% 0.98-0.99), p 0.009 and 2.74 (CI 95% 1.16-6.48), p 0.022, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a full vaccination cycle, severe COVID-19 may occur in patients with relevant comorbidities, especially immunosuppression and CKD. Regardless the immunization status, predisposing conditions (i.e., older age, COPD, and immunosuppression) and a severe clinical presentation were predictors of 28-day mortality.

Physiological effects of awake prone position in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: The effects of awake prone position on the breathing pattern of hypoxemic patients need to be better understood. We conducted a crossover trial to assess the physiological effects of awake prone position in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: Fifteen patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg underwent high-flow nasal oxygen for 1 h in supine position and 2 h in prone position, followed by a final 1-h supine phase. At the end of each study phase, the following parameters were measured: arterial blood gases, inspiratory effort (ΔPES), transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL), respiratory rate and esophageal pressure simplified pressure-time product per minute (sPTPES) by esophageal manometry, tidal volume (VT), end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), lung compliance, airway resistance, time constant, dynamic strain (VT/EELI) and pendelluft extent through electrical impedance tomography. RESULTS: Compared to supine position, prone position increased PaO2/FiO2 (median [Interquartile range] 104 mmHg [76-129] vs. 74 [69-93], p < 0.001), reduced respiratory rate (24 breaths/min [22-26] vs. 27 [26-30], p = 0.05) and increased ΔPES (12 cmH2O [11-13] vs. 9 [8-12], p = 0.04) with similar sPTPES (131 [75-154] cmH2O s min-1 vs. 105 [81-129], p > 0.99) and ΔPL (9 [7-11] cmH2O vs. 8 [5-9], p = 0.17). Airway resistance and time constant were higher in prone vs. supine position (9 cmH2O s arbitrary units-3 [4-11] vs. 6 [4-9], p = 0.05; 0.53 s [0.32-61] vs. 0.40 [0.37-0.44], p = 0.03). Prone position increased EELI (3887 arbitrary units [3414-8547] vs. 1456 [959-2420], p = 0.002) and promoted VT distribution towards dorsal lung regions without affecting VT size and lung compliance: this generated lower dynamic strain (0.21 [0.16-0.24] vs. 0.38 [0.30-0.49], p = 0.004). The magnitude of pendelluft phenomenon was not different between study phases (55% [7-57] of VT in prone vs. 31% [14-55] in supine position, p > 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position improves oxygenation, increases EELI and promotes VT distribution towards dependent lung regions without affecting VT size, ΔPL, lung compliance and pendelluft magnitude. Prone position reduces respiratory rate and increases ΔPES because of positional increases in airway resistance and prolonged expiratory time. Because high ΔPES is the main mechanistic determinant of self-inflicted lung injury, caution may be needed in using awake prone position in patients exhibiting intense ΔPES. Clinical trail registeration: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03095300) on March 29, 2017.

Recruitment-to-inflation Ratio Assessed through Sequential End-expiratory Lung Volume Measurement in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) benefits in acute respiratory distress syndrome are driven by lung dynamic strain reduction. This depends on the variable extent of alveolar recruitment. The recruitment-to-inflation ratio estimates recruitability across a 10-cm H2O PEEP range through a simplified maneuver. Whether recruitability is uniform or not across this range is unknown. The hypotheses of this study are that the recruitment-to-inflation ratio represents an accurate estimate of PEEP-induced changes in dynamic strain, but may show nonuniform behavior across the conventionally tested PEEP range (15 to 5 cm H2O). METHODS: Twenty patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome underwent a decremental PEEP trial (PEEP 15 to 13 to 10 to 8 to 5 cm H2O). Respiratory mechanics and end-expiratory lung volume by nitrogen dilution were measured the end of each step. Gas exchange, recruited volume, recruitment-to-inflation ratio, and changes in dynamic, static, and total strain were computed between 15 and 5 cm H2O (global recruitment-to-inflation ratio) and within narrower PEEP ranges (granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio). RESULTS: Between 15 and 5 cm H2O, median [interquartile range] global recruitment-to-inflation ratio was 1.27 [0.40 to 1.69] and displayed a linear correlation with PEEP-induced dynamic strain reduction (r = -0.94; P < 0.001). Intraindividual recruitment-to-inflation ratio variability within the narrower ranges was high (85% [70 to 109]). The relationship between granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio and PEEP was mathematically described by a nonlinear, quadratic equation (R2 = 0.96). Granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio across the narrower PEEP ranges itself had a linear correlation with PEEP-induced reduction in dynamic strain (r = -0.89; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both global and granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio accurately estimate PEEP-induced changes in lung dynamic strain. However, the effect of 10 cm H2O of PEEP on lung strain may be nonuniform. Granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio assessment within narrower PEEP ranges guided by end-expiratory lung volume measurement may aid more precise PEEP selection, especially when the recruitment-to-inflation ratio obtained with the simplified maneuver between PEEP 15 and 5 cm H2O yields intermediate values that are difficult to interpret for a proper choice between a high and low PEEP strategy.

Personalized Respiratory Support in ARDS: A Physiology-to-Bedside Review.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide, and while no specific etiologic interventions have been shown to improve outcomes, noninvasive and invasive respiratory support strategies are life-saving interventions that allow time for lung recovery. However, the inappropriate management of these strategies, which neglects the unique features of respiratory, lung, and chest wall mechanics may result in disease progression, such as patient self-inflicted lung injury during spontaneous breathing or by ventilator-induced lung injury during invasive mechanical ventilation. ARDS characteristics are highly heterogeneous; therefore, a physiology-based approach is strongly advocated to titrate the delivery and management of respiratory support strategies to match patient characteristics and needs to limit ARDS progression. Several tools have been implemented in clinical practice to aid the clinician in identifying the ARDS sub-phenotypes based on physiological peculiarities (inspiratory effort, respiratory mechanics, and recruitability), thus allowing for the appropriate application of personalized supportive care. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of noninvasive and invasive respiratory support strategies, as well as discuss how identifying ARDS sub-phenotypes in daily practice can help clinicians to deliver personalized respiratory support and potentially improve patient outcomes.

Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6 months after the enrollment. RESULTS: Among 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide < 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity < 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47-77] of predicted vs. 80% [71-88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53-70] vs. 80 [70-83], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6 months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 2020.

Non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, including COVID-19.

Optimal initial non-invasive management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), of both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 etiologies, has been the subject of significant discussion. Avoidance of endotracheal intubation reduces related complications, but maintenance of spontaneous breathing with intense respiratory effort may increase risks of patients' self-inflicted lung injury, leading to delayed intubation and worse clinical outcomes. High-flow nasal oxygen is currently recommended as the optimal strategy for AHRF management for its simplicity and beneficial physiological effects. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), delivered as either pressure support or continuous positive airway pressure via interfaces like face masks and helmets, can improve oxygenation and may be associated with reduced endotracheal intubation rates. However, treatment failure is common and associated with poor outcomes. Expertise and knowledge of the specific features of each interface are necessary to fully exploit their potential benefits and minimize risks. Strict clinical and physiological monitoring is necessary during any treatment to avoid delays in endotracheal intubation and protective ventilation. In this narrative review, we analyze the physiological benefits and risks of spontaneous breathing in AHRF, and the characteristics of tools for delivering NIV. The goal herein is to provide a contemporary, evidence-based overview of this highly relevant topic.

Use of High-Dose Nebulized Colistimethate in Patients with Colistin-Only Susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii VAP: Clinical, Pharmacokinetic and Microbiome Features.

(1) Background: Colistin-only susceptible (COS) Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) represents a clinical challenge in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) due to the negligible lung diffusion of this molecule and the low-grade evidence on efficacy of its nebulization. (2) Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study on 134 ICU patients with COS-AB VAP to describe the 'real life' clinical use of high-dose (5 MIU q8) aerosolized colistin, using a vibrating mesh nebulizer. Lung pharmacokinetics and microbiome features were investigated. (3) Results: Patients were enrolled during the COVID-19 pandemic with the ICU presenting a SAPS II of 42 [32-57]. At VAP diagnosis, the median PaO2/FiO2 was 120 [100-164], 40.3% were in septic shock, and 24.6% had secondary bacteremia. The twenty-eight day mortality was 50.7% with 60.4% and 40.3% rates of clinical cure and microbiological eradication, respectively. We did not observe any drug-related adverse events. Epithelial lining fluid colistin concentrations were far above the CRAB minimal-inhibitory concentration and the duration of nebulized therapy was an independent predictor of microbiological eradication (12 [9.75-14] vs. 7 [4-13] days, OR (95% CI): 1.069 (1.003-1.138), p = 0.039). (4) Conclusions: High-dose and prolonged colistin nebulization, using a vibrating mesh, was a safe adjunctive therapeutic strategy for COS-AB VAP. Its right place and efficacy in this setting warrant investigation in interventional studies.

Respective Effects of Helmet Pressure Support, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Nasal High-Flow in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial.

Rationale: The respective effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pressure support delivered through the helmet interface in patients with hypoxemia need to be better understood. Objectives: To assess the respective effects of helmet pressure support (noninvasive ventilation [NIV]) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) on effort to breathe, lung inflation, and gas exchange in patients with hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ⩽ 200). Methods: Fifteen patients underwent 1-hour phases (constant FiO2) of HFNO (60 L/min), helmet NIV (PEEP = 14 cm H2O, pressure support = 12 cm H2O), and CPAP (PEEP = 14 cm H2O) in randomized sequence. Measurements and Main Results: Inspiratory esophageal (ΔPES) and transpulmonary pressure (ΔPL) swings were used as surrogates for inspiratory effort and lung distension, respectively. Tidal Volume (Vt) and end-expiratory lung volume were assessed with electrical impedance tomography. ΔPES was lower during NIV versus CPAP and HFNO (median [interquartile range], 5 [3-9] cm H2O vs. 13 [10-19] cm H2O vs. 10 [8-13] cm H2O; P = 0.001 and P = 0.01). ΔPL was not statistically different between treatments. PaO2/FiO2 ratio was significantly higher during NIV and CPAP versus HFNO (166 [136-215] and 175 [158-281] vs. 120 [107-149]; P = 0.002 and P = 0.001). NIV and CPAP similarly increased Vt versus HFNO (mean change, 70% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17-122%], P = 0.02; 93% [95% CI, 30-155%], P = 0.002) and end-expiratory lung volume (mean change, 198% [95% CI, 67-330%], P = 0.001; 263% [95% CI, 121-407%], P = 0.001), mostly due to increased aeration/ventilation in dorsal lung regions. During HFNO, 14 of 15 patients had pendelluft involving >10% of Vt; pendelluft was mitigated by CPAP and further by NIV. Conclusions: Compared with HFNO, helmet NIV, but not CPAP, reduced ΔPES. CPAP and NIV similarly increased oxygenation, end-expiratory lung volume, and Vt, without affecting ΔPL. NIV, and to a lesser extent CPAP, mitigated pendelluft. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04241861).

Use of an innovative cuff pressure control and subglottic secretions drainage system in COVID-19 ARDS patients undergoing pronation.

We conducted a proof of concept study where Anapnoguard endotracheal tubes and its control unit were used in 15 patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anapnoguard system provides suction, venting, rinsing of subglottic space and controls cuff pressure detecting air leakage through the cuff. Alpha-amylase and pepsin levels, as oropharyngeal and gastric microaspiration markers, were assessed from 85 tracheal aspirates in the first 72 h after connection to the system. Oropharyngeal microaspiration occurred in 47 cases (55%). Episodes of gastric microaspiration were not detected. Patient positioning, either prone or supine, did not affect alpha-amylase and pepsin concentration in tracheal secretions. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rate was 40%. The use of the AG system provided effective cuff pressure control and subglottic secretions drainage. Despite this, no reduction in the incidence of VAP has been demonstrated, compared to data reported in the current COVID-19 literature. The value of this new technology is worth of being evaluated for the prevention of ventilator-associated respiratory tract infections.

Helmet noninvasive support for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: rationale, mechanism of action and bedside application.

INTRODUCTION: Helmet noninvasive support may provide advantages over other noninvasive oxygenation strategies in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this narrative review based on a systematic search of the literature, we summarize the rationale, mechanism of action and technicalities for helmet support in hypoxemic patients. MAIN RESULTS: In hypoxemic patients, helmet can facilitate noninvasive application of continuous positive-airway pressure or pressure-support ventilation via a hood interface that seals at the neck and is secured by straps under the arms. Helmet use requires specific settings. Continuous positive-airway pressure is delivered through a high-flow generator or a Venturi system connected to the inspiratory port of the interface, and a positive end-expiratory pressure valve place at the expiratory port of the helmet;  alternatively, pressure-support ventilation is delivered by connecting the helmet to a mechanical ventilator through a bi-tube circuit. The helmet interface allows continuous treatments with high positive end-expiratory pressure with good patient comfort. Preliminary data suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may provide physiological benefits compared to other noninvasive oxygenation strategies (conventional oxygen, facemask NIV, high-flow nasal oxygen) in non-hypercapnic patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg), possibly because higher positive end-expiratory pressure (10-15 cmH2O) can be applied for prolonged periods with good tolerability. This improves oxygenation, limits ventilator inhomogeneities, and may attenuate the potential harm of lung and diaphragm injury caused by vigorous inspiratory effort. The potential superiority of helmet support for reducing the risk of intubation has been hypothesized in small, pilot randomized trials and in a network metanalysis. CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive support represents a promising tool for the initial management of patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. Currently, the lack of confidence with this and technique and the absence of conclusive data regarding its efficacy render helmet use limited to specific settings, with expert and trained personnel. As per other noninvasive oxygenation strategies, careful clinical and physiological monitoring during the treatment is essential to early identify treatment failure and avoid delays in intubation.

Remdesivir plus Dexamethasone in COVID-19: A cohort study of severe patients requiring high flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation.

INTRODUCTION: Remdesivir and Dexamethasone represent the cornerstone of therapy for critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical efficacy and safety of concomitant administration of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone (Rem-Dexa) in severe COVID-19 patients on high flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study that was performed in two medical Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of a tertiary university hospital. The clinical impact of Rem-Dexa administration in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, who required NIV or HFOT and selected on the simplified acute physiology score II, the sequential organ failure assessment score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score, was investigated. The primary outcome was 28-day intubation rate; secondary outcomes were end-of-treatment clinical improvement and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, laboratory abnormalities and clinical complications, ICU and hospital length of stay, 28-day and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: We included 132 patients and found that 28-day intubation rate was significantly lower among Rem-Dexa group (19.7% vs 48.5%, p<0.01). Although the end-of-treatment clinical improvement was larger among Rem-Dexa group (69.7% vs 51.5%, p = 0.05), the 28-day and 90-day mortalities were similar (4.5% and 10.6% vs. 15.2% and 16.7%; p = 0.08 and p = 0.45, respectively). The logistic regression and Cox-regression models showed that concomitant Rem-Dexa therapy was associated with a reduction of 28-day intubation rate (OR 0.22, CI95% 0.05-0.94, p = 0.04), in absence of laboratory abnormalities and clinical complications (p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 critically ill patients receiving HFO or NIV, 28-day intubation rate was lower in patients who received Rem-Dexa and this finding corresponded to lower end-of-treatment clinical improvement. The individual contribution of either Remdesevir or Dexamethasone to the observed clinical effect should be further investigated.

Gas conditioning during helmet noninvasive ventilation: effect on comfort, gas exchange, inspiratory effort, transpulmonary pressure and patient-ventilator interaction.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest towards the use of helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Gas conditioning through heat and moisture exchangers (HME) or heated humidifiers (HHs) is needed during facemask NIV to provide a minimum level of humidity in the inspired gas (15 mg H2O/L). The optimal gas conditioning strategy during helmet NIV remains to be established. METHODS: Twenty patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg) underwent consecutive 1-h periods of helmet NIV (PEEP 12 cmH2O, pressure support 12 cmH2O) with four humidification settings, applied in a random order: double-tube circuit with HHs and temperature set at 34 °C (HH34) and 37 °C (HH37); Y-piece circuit with HME; double-tube circuit with no humidification (NoH). Temperature and humidity of inhaled gas were measured through a capacitive hygrometer. Arterial blood gases, discomfort and dyspnea through visual analog scales (VAS), esophageal pressure swings (ΔPES) and simplified pressure-time product (PTPES), dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL) and asynchrony index were measured in each step. RESULTS: Median [IqR] absolute humidity, temperature and VAS discomfort were significantly lower during NoH vs. HME, HH34 and HH37: absolute humidity (mgH2O/L) 16 [12-19] vs. 28 [23-31] vs. 28 [24-31] vs. 33 [29-38], p < 0.001; temperature (°C) 29 [28-30] vs. 30 [29-31] vs. 31 [29-32] vs 32. [31-33], p < 0.001; VAS discomfort 4 [2-6] vs. 6 [2-7] vs. 7 [4-8] vs. 8 [4-10], p = 0.03. VAS discomfort increased with higher absolute humidity (p < 0.01) and temperature (p = 0.007). Higher VAS discomfort was associated with increased VAS dyspnea (p = 0.001). Arterial blood gases, respiratory rate, ΔPES, PTPES and ΔPL were similar in all conditions. Overall asynchrony index was similar in all steps, but autotriggering rate was lower during NoH and HME (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: During 1-h sessions of helmet NIV in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, a double-tube circuit with no humidification allowed adequate conditioning of inspired gas, optimized comfort and improved patient-ventilator interaction. Use of HHs or HME in this setting resulted in increased discomfort due to excessive heat and humidity in the interface, which was associated with more intense dyspnea. Trail Registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875379) on August 23rd, 2016.

Dyspnoea and clinical outcome in critically ill patients receiving noninvasive support for COVID-19 respiratory failure: post hoc analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

In #COVID19 patients, presence of moderate-to-severe dyspnoea is a marker of disease severity correlated to clinical outcomes https://bit.ly/3Bp2G1b.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The HENIVOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

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 H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) 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.

High Failure Rate of Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Critically Ill Subjects With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19.

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, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] 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.