The respiratory oxygenation index for identifying the risk of orotracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula oxygen.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the respiratory oxygenation index (ROX index) measured after the start of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy can help identify the need for intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted at the intensive care units of six Brazilian hospitals from March to December 2020. The primary outcome was the need for intubation up to 7 days after starting the high-flow nasal cannula. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients were included in the study, and 261 (58.7%) were subjected to intubation. An analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) showed that the ability to discriminate between successful and failed high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy within 7 days was greater for the ROX index measured at 24 hours (AUROC 0.80; 95%CI 0.76 - 0.84). The median interval between high-flow nasal cannula initiation and intubation was 24 hours (24 - 72), and the most accurate predictor of intubation obtained before 24 hours was the ROX index measured at 12 hours (AUROC 0.75; 95%CI 0.70 - 0.79). Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a greater probability of intubation within 7 days in patients with a ROX index ≤ 5.54 at 12 hours (hazard ratio 3.07; 95%CI 2.24 - 4.20) and ≤ 5.96 at 24 hours (hazard ratio 5.15; 95%CI 3.65 - 7.27). CONCLUSION: The ROX index can aid in the early identification of patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who will progress to the failure of high-flow nasal cannula supportive therapy and the need for intubation.

Addition of Mask to High-flow Nasal Oxygen: A Strategy to Improve Oxygenation in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Secondary to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNO) reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic-respiratory failure. During HFNO entrainment of room air dilutes the delivered fractional inspiratory oxygen (FiO2), thereby preventing improvement in oxygenation. The placement of a mask over HFNO to improve oxygenation has provided conflicting results. We aimed to determine and compare the effect of placing various mask types over HFNO on oxygen saturation (SPO2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective physiological study 40 patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemic respiratory failure on HFNO with O2 concentration <92% were included. The effect of placing different masks over HFNO on oxygenation, respiratory rate, heart rate, blood pressure, patient comfort, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide level (pCO2) was recorded after a prespecified time interval. RESULTS: We observed a significantly higher mean SPO2 and lower mean respiratory rate on using various study masks over HFNO compared to HFNO alone. On comparing various mask types, the use of N95 masks and nonrebreather (NRB) masks with O2 showed a significant increase in O2 concentration and reduction in respiratory rate compared to surgical mask (SM) and NRB without O2. The proportion of patients who achieved SPO2 of >92% was higher with the use of N95 masks (47.5%) or NRB with O2 (45%) over HFNO compared to SM (35%) and NRB without O2 (35%). No significant change was observed in heart rate, blood pressure, and CO2 level with the use of any mask over HFNO. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates improvement in oxygenation and reduction in respiratory rate with the use of various masks over HFNO in patients of COVID-19-related hypoxemic-respiratory-failure. Significantly greater benefit was achieved with the use of N95 or NRB with O2 compared to SM or NRB without O2.

Tools used to assess comfort among patients undergoing high flow nasal cannula: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The aims were twofold: (a) to map tools documented in the literature to evaluate comfort among patients undergoing high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment; and (b) to assess if the retrieved tools have been validated for this purpose. METHODS: A scoping review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In July 2023, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were consulted. Studies assessing comfort in adult, paediatric, and neonatal patients undergoing HFNC were included. RESULTS: Seventy-four articles were included, among which nine (12.2 %) investigated comfort as the primary aim. Twenty-five different tools were found, classifiable into 14 types, mostly unidimensional and originating from those measuring pain. The most widely used was the Visual Analogic Scale (n = 27, 35.6 %) followed by the Numerical Rating Scale (n = 11, 14.5 %) and less defined generic tools (n = 10, 13.2 %) with different metrics (e.g. 0-5, 0-10, 0-100). Only the General Comfort Questionnaire and the Comfort Scale were specifically validated for the assessment of comfort among adults and children, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the comfort of patients undergoing HFNC is widely investigated in the literature, there is a scarcity of tools specifically validated in this field. Those used have been validated mainly to assess pain, suggesting the need to inform patients to prevent confusion while measuring comfort during HFNC and to develop more research in the field. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Comfort assessment is an important aspect of nursing care. Given the lack of validation studies in the field, efforts in research are recommended.

Retrospective evaluation of the respiratory rate-oxygenation index to predict the outcome of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in dogs (2018-2021): 81 cases.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ROX), modified ROX index (ROX-HR), and the ratio of pulse oximetry saturation (Spo2) to Fio2 (SF) to determine if these indices over time are predictive of outcome in dogs treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC). DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Two university teaching hospitals. ANIMALS: Eighty-one client-owned dogs treated with HFNC for hypoxemic respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The ROX was defined as the SF divided by the respiratory rate (RR), and the ROX-HR was defined as the ROX divided by the heart rate multiplied by 100. The overall success rate of HFNC was 44% (n = 36/81). Dogs weaned from HFNC had a significantly higher ROX (P < 0.0001) at 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 15 hours than dogs that failed HFNC. Both the ROX and SF showed excellent discriminatory power in predicting HFNC failure at 6 hours, with an area under receiver operating curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.99; P < 0.002) and 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-0.99; P < 0.001), respectively. The optimal cutoff values for predicting HFNC failure at 6 hours were a ROX ≤3.68 (sensitivity 72%, specificity 92%) and an SF ≤143 (sensitivity 79%, specificity 93%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that similar to people, the ROX and SF are useful predictors of HFNC failure. These indices are easy to measure at the bedside and may have clinical use. Future prospective studies are warranted to confirm the findings and to optimize cutoff values in a larger population of dogs undergoing HFNC.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation as Initial Treatment in Acute Hypoxia: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

IMPORTANCE: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with hypoxemia often have mixed or uncertain causes of respiratory failure. The optimal treatment for such patients is unclear. Both high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are used. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with HFNC versus NIV for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNC or NIV within 24 hours of arrival to the University of Michigan adult ED from January 2018 to December 2022. We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving NIV. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-d mortality, ventilator-free days, noninvasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a win ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1154 patients were included. Seven hundred twenty-six (62.9%) received HFNC and 428 (37.1%) received NIV. We propensity score matched 668 of 1154 (57.9%) patients. Patients on NIV versus HFNC had lower 28-day mortality (16.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.033) and required noninvasive treatment for fewer hours (median 7.5 vs. 13.5, p < 0.001), but had no difference in ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range]: 28 [26, 28] vs. 28 [10.5, 28], p = 0.199). Win ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored NIV (1.38; 95% CI, 1.15-1.65; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with NIV compared with HFNC was associated with lower mortality and fewer composite major pulmonary adverse events calculated using a win ratio. These findings underscore the need for randomized controlled trials to further understand the impact of noninvasive respiratory support strategies.

Comparison of preoxygenation using a tight facemask, humidified high-flow nasal oxygen and a standard nasal cannula - a volunteer, randomised, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Preoxygenation before anaesthesia induction is routinely performed via a tight-fitting facemask or humidified high-flow nasal oxygen. We hypothesised that effective preoxygenation, assessed by end-tidal oxygen (EtO 2 ) levels, can also be performed via a standard nasal cannula. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of preoxygenation between a traditional facemask, humidified high-flow nasal oxygen and a standard nasal cannula. DESIGN: A volunteer, randomised, crossover study. SETTING: Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. The study was conducted between 2 May and 31 May 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty cardiopulmonary healthy volunteers aged 25-65 years with a BMI <30. INTERVENTIONS: Preoxygenation using a traditional facemask, humidified high-flow nasal oxygen and standard nasal cannula. Volunteers were preoxygenated with all three methods, at various flow rates (10-50 l min -1 ), with open and closed mouths and during vital capacity manoeuvres. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The study's primary outcome compared the efficacy after 3 min of preoxygenation, assessed by EtO 2 levels, between the three methods and various flow rates of preoxygenation. RESULTS: Three methods generated higher EtO 2 levels than others: (i) facemask preoxygenation using normal breathing, (ii) humidified high-flow nasal oxygen, closed-mouth breathing, at 50 l min -1 and (iii) standard nasal cannula, closed-mouth breathing, at 50 l min -1 , and expressed as means (SD): 90% (3), 90% (6) and 88% (5), respectively. Preoxygenation efficacy was greater via the bi-nasal cannulae using closed vs. open mouth breathing as well as with 3 min of normal breathing vs. eight vital capacity breaths. Preoxygenation with a facemask and humidified high-flow nasal oxygen was more comfortable than a standard nasal cannula. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of preoxygenation using a standard nasal cannula at high flow rates is no different to clinically used methods today. The standard nasal cannula provides less comfort but is highly effective and could be an option when alternative methods are unavailable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05839665.

High-flow nasal cannula therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy for adult patients after cardiac surgery: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy constitutes a crucial element of post-cardiac operative care. The study assessed the effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in comparison to conventional oxygen therapy (COT). OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC in comparison to COT for adult patients following cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception until April 18, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in adult patients following cardiac surgery. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included nine studies, consisting of eight RCTs and one crossover study. Compared with COT, HFNC could reduce the need for escalation of respiratory support (RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.93, P = 0.02), decrease arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) levels (MD -3.14, 95% CI: -4.90 to -1.39, P<0.001), and increase forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) levels (MD 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.15, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the HFNC and COT groups in terms of mortality, intubation rate, respiratory rate, heart rate, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), forced vital capacity, and complications of atrial fibrillation and delirium. CONCLUSION: Compared with COT, HFNC could decrease the need for escalation of respiratory support, lower PaCO2 levels, and elevate FEV1 levels in patients following cardiac surgery.

Improving Breath Detection From Pulsed-Flow Oxygen Sources Using a New Nasal Interface.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COPD and other lung diseases are treated with long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). Portable oxygen sources are required to administer LTOT while maintaining patient autonomy. Existing portable oxygen equipment has limitations that can hinder patient mobility. A novel nasal interface is presented in this study, aiming to enhance breath detection and triggering efficiency of portable pulsed-flow oxygen devices, thereby improving patient mobility and independence. METHOD: To examine the effectiveness of the new interface, 8 respiratory therapists participated in trials using different oxygen sources (tank with oxygen-conserving device, SimplyGo Mini portable oxygen concentrator [POC], and OxyGo NEXT POC) and breathing types (nasal and oral) while using either the new nasal interface or a standard cannula. Each trial was video recorded so participant breaths could be retroactively matched with a pulse/no-pulse response, and triggering success rates were calculated by dividing the number of oxygen pulses by the number of breaths in each trial. After each trial, volunteers were asked to rate their perceived breathing resistance. RESULTS: Nasal breathing consistently resulted in higher triggering success rates compared to oral breathing for pulsed-flow oxygen devices. POCs exhibited higher triggering success rates than did the oxygen tanks with conserving device. However, there were no significant differences in triggering success rates between the two POC models. The new nasal interface demonstrated improved triggering success rates compared to the standard cannula. Whereas the new nasal interface was associated with a slight increase in perceived breathing resistance during nasal breathing trials, participants reported manageable resistance levels when using the interface. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the new nasal interface can improve triggering success rates of pulsed-flow oxygen devices during both nasal and oral breathing scenarios. Further research involving patient trials is recommended to understand the clinical implications of improved pulse triggering.

High Flow Nasal Cannula for Weaning Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to systematically review the benefits and harms of using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for weaning continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) support in preterm infants. METHODS: Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 15, 2023. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing weaning CPAP using HFNC versus weaning CPAP alone and evaluating predefined outcomes were included. Two authors independently performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Cochrane GRADE. RESULTS: Among 843 identified records, seven RCTs involving 781 preterm infants were eligible for analysis. The meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in duration of respiratory support when using HFNC for weaning compared to weaning CPAP alone (mean difference (95% confidence interval) 3.52 (-0.02, 7.05); 5 RCTs; participants = 488; I2 = 29%). The evidence certainty was downgraded to low due to study limitations and imprecision. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes, except for a lower occurrence of nasal trauma with HFNC for weaning CPAP compared to weaning CPAP alone (relative risk (95% confidence interval) 0.61 (0.38, 0.99); 4 RCTs; participants = 335; I2 = 0%). The evidence certainty for the secondary outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSION: Low certainty of evidence suggests using HFNC for weaning CPAP in preterm infants may not impact the duration of respiratory support. Caution is advised when considering HFNC for weaning CPAP, especially in extremely preterm infants, until additional supportive evidence on its safety becomes available.

Can the ROX index predict high-flow nasal cannula failure in children under 2 with lower respiratory tract infection?

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the ROX index's accuracy in predicting the success or failure of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in children under 2 years with acute respiratory failure (ARF) from lower respiratory tract infections. METHODS: From January 2018 to 2021 we conducted this multicenter retrospective cohort study, which included patients aged 2-24 months. We aimed to assess HFNC therapy outcomes as either success or failure. The analysis covered patient demographics, diagnoses, vital signs, and ROX index values at intervals from 0 to 48 h after initiating HFNC. We used bivariate analysis, repeated measures ANOVA, multivariate logistic regression, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The study involved 529 patients from six centers, with 198 females (37%) and a median age of 9 months (IQR: 3-15 months). HFNC therapy failed in 38% of cases. We observed significant variability in failure rates across different centers and physicians (p < .001). The ROX index was significantly associated with HFNC outcomes at all time points, showing an increasing trend in success cases over time (p < .001), but not in HFNC failure cases. Its predictive ability is limited, with AUC-ROC values ranging from 0.56 at the start to 0.67 at 48 h. CONCLUSION: While the ROX index is associated with HFNC outcomes in children under 2 years, its predictive ability is modest, impacted by significant variability among patients, physicians, and centers. These findings emphasize the need for more reliable predictive tools for HFNC therapy in this patient population.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Acutely Ill Children Admitted to Pediatric Critical Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation. Results: Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Following Extubation on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Critically Ill Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation of critically ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), on time to liberation from respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 22 pediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Six hundred children aged 0 to 15 years clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support within 72 hours of extubation were recruited between August 8, 2019, and May 18, 2020, with last follow-up completed on November 22, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to start either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 299) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 301). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which the child was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75. There were 6 secondary outcomes, including mortality at day 180 and reintubation within 48 hours. Results: Of the 600 children who were randomized, 553 children (HFNC, 281; CPAP, 272) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 3 months; 241 girls [44%]). HFNC failed to meet noninferiority, with a median time to liberation of 50.5 hours (95% CI, 43.0-67.9) vs 42.9 hours (95% CI, 30.5-48.2) for CPAP (adjusted HR, 0.83; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.70-∞). Similar results were seen across prespecified subgroups. Of the 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 showed no significant difference, including the rate of reintubation within 48 hours (13.3% for HFNC vs 11.5 % for CPAP). Mortality at day 180 was significantly higher for HFNC (5.6% vs 2.4% for CPAP; adjusted odds ratio, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.1-8.8]). The most common adverse events were abdominal distension (HFNC: 8/281 [2.8%] vs CPAP: 7/272 [2.6%]) and nasal/facial trauma (HFNC: 14/281 [5.0%] vs CPAP: 15/272 [5.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, HFNC compared with CPAP following extubation failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

The application of a surgical face mask over different oxygen delivery devices; a crossover study of measured end-tidal oxygen concentrations.

BACKGROUND: The application of a surgical face mask over oxygen delivery devices is now a widespread recommendation in the setting of the Coronavirus disease pandemic. This addition is designed to reduce droplet spread, but this also changes the nature of these devices, and may alter the amount of oxygen delivered to a patient. This research investigated how placing a surgical face mask over both a simple plastic mask ("Hudson mask") and nasal cannula altered the concentration of available oxygen measured at the nares. METHODS: We measured the inspired and end-tidal oxygen concentrations of five healthy non-smoking volunteers. Oxygen was delivered via nasal cannula and also a simple plastic face mask, at flow rates of 2, 4, 6 and 8 l per minute, with and without an overlying surgical face mask. RESULTS: Adding a surgical mask over nasal cannula caused an appreciable rise in the end-tidal oxygen concentrations at all the measured oxygen flow rates 2, 4, 6, 8 L/minute. With the Hudson mask, there was a rise in oxygen concentration at 4 and 6 L/minute. For example, at a flow rate of 4 l/min via nasal cannula, available oxygen concentration increased from 24 to 36%, and via the Hudson mask the concentration rose from 27 to 38%. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a surgical face mask over both nasal cannula and a Hudson mask resulted in an increased available oxygen concentration. This may be valuable where more advanced oxygen devices are not available, or alternatively providing adequate supplemental oxygen at lower flow rates and thus making critical savings in oxygen usage.

Baricitinibe para tratamento de pacientes adultos com Covid-19 hospitalizados que necessitam de oxigênio por máscara ou cateter nasal, ou que necessitam de alto fluxo de oxigênio ou ventilação não invasiva / Baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalized adult patients with Covid-19 who require oxygen by mask or nasal catheter, or who require high flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation

INTRODUÇÃO: O baricitinbe, um imunomodulador que atua sobre a atividade da IL-6 (citocina pró-inflamatória), pode representar uma estratégia para o tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 que tiveram comprometimento pulmonar devido a resposta hiperinflamátoria desencadeada pela tempestade de citocinas característica na infecção causada pelo vírus SARS-COV2. TECNOLOGIA: Baricitinibe (Olumiant®). EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: Para seleção das evidências clínicas foi conduzida uma revisão sistemática da literatura em busca de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR), estudos observacionais (mundo real) e revisões sistemáticas que avaliassem os efeitos do baricitinibe como monoterapia ou associado aos cuidados usuais - definidos aqui como 'terapia padrão' (corticoesteróides sistêmicos, anticoagulantes, antimicrobianos/antivirais) no tratamento de pacientes adultos com COVID-19, hospitalizados e que necessitam de suplementação de oxigênio (máscara ou cateter nasal, alto fluxo de oxigênio ou ventilação não invasiva). As buscas eletrônicas foram realizadas nas bases de dados: the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Pubmed, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), EMBASE e Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). O risco de viés dos estudos primários incluídos foi avaliado pelas ferramentas Risk of Bias versão 2 da Cochrane (para ECR) ou ROBINS-I (para estudos observacionais), e a qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada pela ferramenta AMSTAR-2. A qualidade da evidência foi avaliada pelo sistema GRADE. Seis artigos foram incluídos na presente revisão, sendo dois deles referentes a um ensaio clínico randomizado (ECR), um estudo observacional e três revisões sistemáticas com meta-análise (RSMA), sendo uma

Pre-oxygenation with facemask oxygen vs high-flow nasal oxygen vs high-flow nasal oxygen plus mouthpiece: a randomised controlled trial.

High-flow nasal oxygen used before and during apnoea prolongs time to desaturation at induction of anaesthesia. It is unclear how much oxygenation before apnoea prolongs this time. We randomly allocated 84 participants to 3 minutes of pre-oxygenation by one of three methods: 15 l.min-1 by facemask; 50 l.min-1 by high-flow nasal cannulae only; or 50 l.min-1 by high-flow nasal cannulae plus 15 l.min-1 by mouthpiece. We then anaesthetised and intubated the trachea of 79 participants and waited for oxygen saturation to fall to 92%. Median (IQR [range]) times to desaturate to 92% after pre-oxygenation with facemask oxygen, high-flow nasal oxygen only and high-flow nasal oxygen with mouthpiece, were: 309 (208-417 [107-544]) s; 344 (250-393 [194-585]) s; and 386 (328-498 [182-852]) s, respectively, p = 0.014. Time to desaturation after facemask pre-oxygenation was shorter than after combined nasal and mouthpiece pre-oxygenation, p = 0.006. We could not statistically distinguish high-flow nasal oxygen without mouthpiece from the other two groups for this outcome. Median (IQR [range]) arterial oxygen partial pressure after 3 minutes of pre-oxygenation by facemask, nasal cannulae and nasal cannulae plus mouthpiece, was: 49 (36-61 [24-66]) kPa; 57 (48-62 [30-69]) kPa; and 61 (55-64 [36-72]) kPa, respectively, p = 0.003. Oxygen partial pressure after 3 minutes of pre-oxygenation with nasal and mouthpiece combination was greater than after facemask pre-oxygenation, p = 0.002, and after high-flow nasal oxygen alone, p = 0.016. We did not reject the null hypothesis for the pairwise comparison of facemask pre-oxygenation and high-flow nasal pre-oxygenation, p = 0.14.

Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.