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.

Respiratory Drive in Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: Modulation by High-flow Nasal Cannula.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and pilot clinical data suggest that spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis and septic shock may present increased respiratory drive and effort, even in the absence of pulmonary infection. The study hypothesis was that respiratory drive and effort may be increased in septic patients and correlated with extrapulmonary determinant and that high-flow nasal cannula may modulate drive and effort. METHODS: Twenty-five nonintubated patients with extrapulmonary sepsis or septic shock were enrolled. Each patient underwent three consecutive steps: low-flow oxygen at baseline, high-flow nasal cannula, and then low-flow oxygen again. Arterial blood gases, esophageal pressure, and electrical impedance tomography data were recorded toward the end of each step. Respiratory effort was measured as the negative swing of esophageal pressure (ΔPes); drive was quantified as the change in esophageal pressure during the first 500 ms from start of inspiration (P0.5). Dynamic lung compliance was calculated as the tidal volume measured by electrical impedance tomography, divided by ΔPes. The results are presented as medians [25th to 75th percentile]. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (52%) were in septic shock. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 5 [4 to 9]. During low-flow oxygen at baseline, respiratory drive and effort were elevated and significantly correlated with arterial lactate (r = 0.46, P = 0.034) and inversely with dynamic lung compliance (r = -0.735, P < 0.001). Noninvasive support by high-flow nasal cannula induced a significant decrease of respiratory drive (P0.5: 6.0 [4.4 to 9.0] vs. 4.3 [3.5 to 6.6] vs. 6.6 [4.9 to 10.7] cm H2O, P < 0.001) and effort (ΔPes: 8.0 [6.0 to 11.5] vs. 5.5 [4.5 to 8.0] vs. 7.5 [6.0 to 12.6] cm H2O, P < 0.001). Oxygenation and arterial carbon dioxide levels remained stable during all study phases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sepsis and septic shock of extrapulmonary origin present elevated respiratory drive and effort, which can be effectively reduced by high-flow nasal cannula.

A randomized crossover pilot study comparing the efficacy of an auto-demand oxygen delivery system with that of a conventional demand oxygen delivery system in patients with chronic respiratory failure.

INTRODUCTION: : When using portable oxygen, a demand oxygen delivery system (DODS), which senses the beginning of inhalation and delivers a bolus of oxygen, is often used. However, conventional DODS may not supply sufficient oxygen when reduced tidal flow fails to trigger the flow sensor. Recently, "auto-DODS," which detects the negative pressure of inhalation and switches among 3 trigger sensitivity levels (standard, high, and extra high), has been developed to improve the efficacy of oxygenation. An auto-DODS can also supply pulsed-flow oxygen when it detects apnea, whereas a conventional DODS has only standard sensitivity. This randomized, open-label, crossover pilot study compared the performance of an auto-DODS with that of a conventional DODS. METHODS: : We recruited patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial pneumonia receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Interventions were performed on 2 different days for each participant. On each day, an auto-DODS or a conventional DODS were tested at rest for 30 minutes and during the 6-minute walk test. The primary outcome was mean oxygen saturation (SpO2). Secondary outcomes were the ratios of time for each sensitivity level and pulsed-flow oxygen when using the auto-DODS, total time desaturated below SpO2 90%, percentage of time desaturated below SpO2 90%, minimum SpO2, mean and maximum pulse rate, six-minute walk distance, recovery time after 6-minute walk test, modified Borg scale, comfort, and discomfort index. RESULTS: : When using the auto-DODS at rest, a high or extra high sensitivity level was observed in addition to standard sensitivity in 6 of 8 participants. During the 6-minute walk test, only standard sensitivity was observed in 6 participants. Mean SpO2 differences between the auto-DODS and conventional DODS at rest and during the 6-minute walk test were -0.6 [-4.5, 3.4] and 0.0 [-2.5, 2.5] ([95% confidence interval]), respectively, neither of which were significant (P = .73 and P = .99). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. There were no adverse events when using the auto-DODS. CONCLUSIONS: : This study showed that the auto-DODS did not show superiority in oxygenation either at rest or during exercise compared to a conventional DODS. The auto-DODS was shown to supply oxygen safely and detect inhalations with various trigger sensitivities.

High flow versus conventional nasal cannula for oxygenation and ventilation maintenance during surgery with intravenous deep sedation by propofol: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The dead space washout and provision of some level of positive airway pressure by nasal high-flow (NHF) cannula could improve the efficiency of ventilation, oxygenation and maintenance of the upper airway in patients undergoing deep sedation. This study aimed to compare the incidences of events represented oxygenation and ventilation, i.e. desaturation and upper airway obstruction, and arterial blood gas (ABG) levels between using NHF cannula and conventional nasal cannula (NC2) during deep sedation of adult surgical patients. METHODS: In this prospective randomized single-blinded study, the patients who were 20-80 years old, ASA physical status of 1 to 3, scheduled for surgery under intravenous sedation (IVS) were included. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, i.e., NC2 or NHF groups. Propofol infusion was given to maintain deep sedation. The desaturation (SpO2 < 92%) and upper airway obstruction events (presence of snoring with paradoxical breathing) after application of NC2 or NHF were observed and collected. Other outcomes included interventions during IVS, such as jaw lifting or airway instrument insertion, mouth dryness, and post- ABG analyses were also collected and compared. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients undergoing endovascular surgery were randomized into NC2 or NHF groups (18 in each group). No patients dropped out of the study. There were no significant differences in age, sex, ASA physical status, pre-sedation and pre-application of NC2 and NHF ABG analyses (PaO2, SaO2, pH, PaCO2, and PaO2/FiO2). NHF group had significantly lower in the incidence of desaturation [5 (27.78%) vs 13 (72.22%), p = 0.008], upper airway obstruction [4 (22.22%) vs 13 (72.22%), p = 0.003], and airway maneuver [6 (33.33%) vs 13 (72.22%), p = 0.019] than NC2 group. There were no differences in the ABG analyses after oxygen supplementation and no significant differences in mouth dryness between groups. CONCLUSION: The use of NHF cannula in patients undergoing endovascular surgery under deep sedation reduced desaturation events and required fewer airway interventions than NC2 with no difference in arterial blood gas analyses and mouth dryness.

Oxygenation strategies during flexible bronchoscopy: a review of the literature.

During flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) the arterial partial pressure of oxygen can drop, increasing the risk for respiratory failure. To avoid desaturation episodes during the procedure several oxygenation strategies have been proposed, including conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). By a review of the current literature, we merely describe the clinical practice of oxygen therapies during FOB. We also conducted a pooled data analysis with respect to oxygenation outcomes, comparing HFNC with COT and NIV, separately. COT showed its benefits in patients undergoing FOB for broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) or brushing for cytology, in those with peripheral arterial oxyhemoglobin saturation < 93% prior to the procedure or affected by obstructive disorder. HFNC is preferable over COT in patients with mild to moderate acute respiratory failure (ARF) undergoing FOB, by improving oxygen saturation and decreasing the episodes of desaturation. On the opposite, CPAP and NIV guarantee improved oxygenation outcomes as compared to HFNC, and they should be preferred in patients with more severe hypoxemic ARF during FOB.

Feasibility of non-invasive nitric oxide gas inhalation to prevent endotracheal intubation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) is characterized by both lower arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide tensions in the blood. First line treatment for ARF includes oxygen therapy - intially administered non invasively using nasal prongs, high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) or masks. Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is usually reserved for patients who are unable to maintain their airway, those with worsening hypoxemia, or those who develop respiratory muscle fatigue and consequent hypercapnia. Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) gas is known to improve oxygenation in patients with ARF by manipulating ventilation-perfusion matching. Addition of iNO may potentially alleviate the need for IMV in selected patients. CASE SUMMARY: In this article we report our preliminary experience of using HFNC to deliver oxygen and nitric oxide gas in patients with hypoxemic ARF as a strategy to potentially avoid IMV in selected patients. CONCLUSION: This article demonstrates the feasibility of this technique based on our experience of patients with hypoxemic ARF and generates hypothesis for future studies.

Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion: Patients With Central Sleep Apnea: A Technical Expert Panel Report From the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Association for Respiratory Care, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and the American Thoracic Society.

This document summarizes suggestions of the central sleep apnea (CSA) Technical Expert Panel working group. This paper shares our vision for bringing the right device to the right patient at the right time. For patients with CSA, current coverage criteria do not align with guideline treatment recommendations. For example, CPAP and oxygen therapy are recommended but not covered for CSA. On the other hand, bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) without a backup rate may be a covered therapy for OSA, but it may worsen CSA. Narrow coverage criteria that require near elimination of obstructive breathing events on CPAP or BPAP in the spontaneous mode, even if at poorly tolerated pressure levels, may preclude therapy with BPAP with backup rate or adaptive servoventilation, even when those devices provide demonstrably better therapy. CSA is a dynamic disorder that may require different treatments over time, sometimes switching from one device to another; an example is switching from BPAP with backup rate to an adaptive servoventilation with automatic end-expiratory pressure adjustments, which may not be covered. To address these challenges, we suggest several changes to the coverage determinations, including: (1) a single simplified initial and continuing coverage definition of CSA that aligns with OSA; (2) removal of hypoventilation terminology from coverage criteria for CSA; (3) all effective therapies for CSA should be covered, including oxygen and all PAP devices with or without backup rates or servo-mechanisms; and (4) patients shown to have a suboptimal response to one PAP device should be allowed to add oxygen or change to another PAP device with different capabilities if shown to be effective with testing.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy was effective for dysphagia associated with respiratory muscle paralysis due to cervical spinal cord injury: A case report.

RATIONALE: Respiratory muscle paralysis due to low cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) can lead to dysphagia. Noninvasive positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy can effectively treat this type of dysphagia. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy can generate a low level of positive airway pressure resembling PAP therapy, it may improve the dysphagia. PATIENT CONCERNS: The patient was an 87-year-old man without preexisting dysphagia. He suffered a CSCI due to a dislocated C5/6 fracture, without brain injury, and underwent emergency surgery. Postoperatively (day 2), he complained of dysphagia, and the intervention was initiated. DIAGNOSIS: Based on clinical findings, dysphagia in this case, may have arisen due to impaired coordination between breathing and swallowing, which typically occurs in patients with CSCI who have reduced forced vital capacity. INTERVENTIONS: HFNC oxygen therapy was started immediately after the surgery, and swallowing rehabilitation was started on Day 2. Indirect therapy (without food) and direct therapy (with food) were applied in stages. HFNC oxygen therapy appeared to be effective because swallowing function temporarily decreased when the HFNC oxygen therapy was changed to nasal canula oxygen therapy. OUTCOMES: Swallowing function of the patient improved and he did not develop aspiration pneumonia. LESSONS: HFNC oxygen therapy improved swallowing function in a patient with dysphagia associated with respiratory-muscle paralysis following a CSCI. It may have prolonged the apnea tolerance time during swallowing and may have improved the timing of swallowing. HFNC oxygen therapy can facilitate both indirect and direct early swallowing therapy to restore both swallowing and respiratory function.

Rendesivir para tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 hospitalizados com pneumonia e necessidade de suplementação de oxigênio / Rendesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized with pneumonia and need for oxygen supplementation

INTRODUÇÃO: No dia 12 de março de 2021 a ANVISA concedeu o registro para comercialização de rendesivir no Brasil como primeiro e único medicamento com indicação aprovada em bula, para tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 com pneumonia e necessidade de suplementação de oxigênio (baixo ou alto fluxo e ventilação mecânica não invasiva). A autorização fornecida pela ANVISA para uso do medicamento no Brasil, diverge da recomendação da OMS que desaconselha o uso do rendesivir para tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19, independente de sua gravidade usando como base os resultados interinos do estudo Solidarity (14). Este estudo revelou que o uso do rendesivir, assim como outros antivirais analisados, não foi capaz de reduzir de forma significativa a mortalidade geral ou de nenhum subgrupo estudado, nem retardar o início da ventilação mecânica ou reduzir o tempo de hospitalização. A redução do tempo de internação para a ANVISA foi um critério importante para o contexto brasileiro devido a constante falta de leitos disponíveis para o tratamento dos pacientes acometidos pela COVID-19. TECNOLOGIA: Remdesivir (Veklury®). PERGUNTA: O uso do rendesivir é eficaz e seguro para tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 e que necessitam de suplementação de oxigênio (de baixo ou alto fluxo e ventilação mecânica não invasiva)? EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: As evidências avaliadas baseiam-se em quatro ensaios clínicos randomizados, onde dois compararam rendesivir com placebo e outros dois comparando rendesivir com cuidado padrão. Foram obtidos resultados favoráveis ao rendesivir com maior probabilidade de recuperação no 29º dia (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1,29, 95%IC 1,12-1,49, p<0,001) em um dos estudos. Para o desfecho mortalidade no 29º dia, os resultados do mesmo ensaio foram significativos apenas para o subgrupo de pacientes que necessitavam de suplementação de oxigênio de baixo ou alto fluxo (HR = 0,30, 95%IC 0,14- 0,64). Ao sumarizar os dados dos quatro estudos observou-se que em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19, o uso do rendesivir comparado com o grupo controle não resultou em diferenças estatisticamente significativas tanto quanto os desfechos de mortalidade (Risco Relativo [RR]: 0,98, 95%IC 0,84-1,14); necessidade de ventilação mecânica (RR: 0,77, 95%IC 0,48-1,22) e recuperação (RR: 1,09, 95%IC 1,03-1,15), segundo três estudos. O rendesivir comparado com placebo e cuidado padrão pode reduzir em 25% o risco da ocorrência de eventos adversos sérios (RR: 0,75, 95%IC 0,63-0,90). AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA: Os resultados do modelo econômico apresentado pelo demandante têm limitações que tornam incertos os resultados do modelo econômico apresentado, de forma que a sua utilização para tomada de decisão sobre a tecnologia é duvidosa. ANÁLISE DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: O impacto orçamentário incremental após a proposta de redução de preço pelo demandante foi estimado em aproximadamente 28 bilhões de reais, como melhor cenário. MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram identificadas oito tecnologias potenciais para a indicação clínica. O opaganib consiste no primeiro agente de uma nova classe farmacológica, a dos inibidores de esfingosina-quinases. Outro potencial medicamento para a indicação a ser administrado por via oral e em combinação ao cuidado padrão (não especificado no protocolo do estudo), é o fostamatinib. O reparixin é um análogo do ibuprofeno e sua eficácia para o tratamento de pacientes com pneumonia grave acometidos por COVID-19 está sendo avaliada. O BDB-001 e o ravulizumab têm como alvo farmacológico o fator C5a do sistema complemento. Os anticorpos monoclonais canaquinumab, mavrilimumab e tocilizumabe também estão em desenvolvimento. Além disso, foram identificados três depósitos de patentes relacionados ao rendesivir no Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Intelectual. CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: O balanço entre os aspectos positivos e negativos do rendesivir foi desfavorável ao seu uso no tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19. Apesar do baixo risco de eventos adversos, houve uma baixa confiança na eficácia do medicamento, uma vez que os resultados dos estudos são discrepantes e baseados em uma análise de subgrupo de apenas um estudo. O impacto orçamentário estimado foi considerado elevado. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Diante do exposto, a Conitec, em sua 98ª Reunião Ordinária, realizada no dia 10 de junho de 2021, deliberou que a matéria fosse disponibilizada em consulta pública com recomendação preliminar desfavorável à incorporação no SUS do rendesivir para o tratamento da doença causada pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID19), em pacientes adultos com pneumonia que requerem suplementação de oxigênio de baixo ou alto fluxo. Foi discutido, emplenária, que a evidência disponívelsobre a tecnologia emavaliação foi baseada emestudos adaptativos heterogêneos, com importantes limitações metodológicas, que podem se traduzir em resultados devidos apenas ao acaso. Além disso, o perfil de segurança do rendesivir, quando comparado aos medicamentos de cuidado padrão, mostrou que o medicamento está associado a um risco aumentado de bradicardia em pacientes diagnosticados com COVID-19. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: Foram recebidas 90 contribuições, sendo 34 contribuições técnico-científicas e 56 de experiência e opinião. Diante das argumentações apresentadas, o plenário da Conitec entendeu que não houve argumentação suficiente para mudança de entendimento acerca de sua recomendação preliminar, com base nas evidências científicas apresentadas, tampouco na redução de preço proposta pelo fabricante. Desse modo, a Comissão, diante das incertezas quanto à eficácia do medicamento, manteve a posição desfavorável à incorporação do rendesivir para o tratamento dos pacientes hospitalizados com pneumonia provocada pelo COVID-19 com necessidade de suplementação de oxigênio. DELIBERAÇÃO FINAL: O Plenário da Conitec, em sua 100ª Reunião Ordinária, no dia 05 de agosto de 2021, deliberou por unanimidade recomendar a não incorporação do rendesivir para o tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 com necessidade de suplementação de oxigênio (baixo ou alto fluxo, ventilação não invasiva) no âmbito do SUS, com base nas incertezas quanto à eficácia do medicamento. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberaçã nº 651/2021. DECISÃO: Não incorporar o rendesivir para tratamento de pacientes com Covid-19 hospitalizados com pneumonia e necessidade de suplementação de oxigênio, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde ­ SUS, conforme a Portaria nº 60, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 171, seção 1, página 77, em 9 de setembro de 2021.

Clinical impact of implementing humidified high-flow nasal cannula on interhospital transport among children admitted to a PICU with respiratory distress: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is a limited evidence for humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) use on inter-hospital transport. Despite this, its use during transport is increasing in children with respiratory distress worldwide. In 2015 HHFNC was implemented on a specialized pediatric retrieval team serving for Victoria. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the HHFNC implementation on the retrieval team on the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay and respiratory support use. METHODS: We performed a cohort study using a comparative interrupted time-series approach controlling for patient and temporal covariates, and population-adjusted analysis. We studied 3022 children admitted to a PICU in Victoria with respiratory distress January 2010-December 2019. Patients were divided in pre-intervention era (2010-2014) and post-intervention era (2015-2019). RESULTS: 1006 children following interhospital transport and 2016 non-transport children were included. Median (IQR) age was 1.4 (0.7-4.5) years. Pneumonia (39.1%) and bronchiolitis (34.3%) were common. On retrieval, HHFNC was used in 5.0% (21/420) and 45.9% (269/586) in pre- and post-intervention era. In an unadjusted model, median (IQR) PICU length of stay was 2.2 (1.1-4.2) and 1.7 (0.9-3.2) days in the pre- and post-intervention era in transported children while the figures were 2.4 (1.3-4.9) and 2.1 (1.2-4.5) days in non-transport children. In the multivariable regression model, the intervention was associated with the reduced PICU length of stay (ratio 0.64, 95% confidential interval 0.49-0.83, p = 0.001) with the predicted reduction of PICU length of stay being - 10.6 h (95% confidential interval - 16.9 to - 4.3 h), and decreased respiratory support use (- 25.1 h, 95% confidential interval - 47.9 to - 2.3 h, p = 0.03). Sensitivity analyses including a model excluding less severe children showed similar results. In population-adjusted analyses, respiratory support use decreased from 4837 to 3477 person-hour per year in transported children over the study era, while the reduction was 594 (from 9553 to 8959) person-hour per year in non-transport children. With regard to the safety, there were no escalations of respiratory support mode during interhospital transport. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of HHFNC on interhospital transport was associated with the reduced PICU length of stay and respiratory support use among PICU admissions with respiratory distress.