Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation Versus High Flow Nasal Cannula for Covid-19 Related Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

S. Pearson, M. Stutz, P. Lecompte-Osorio, K. Wolfe, A. Pohlman, J.B. Hall, J. Kress, B. Patel
{"title":"Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation Versus High Flow Nasal Cannula for Covid-19 Related Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure","authors":"S. Pearson, M. Stutz, P. Lecompte-Osorio, K. Wolfe, A. Pohlman, J.B. Hall, J. Kress, B. Patel","doi":"10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2021.203.1_meetingabstracts.a2599","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"RATIONALE: A high percentage of patients with Covid-19 associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) receive invasive mechanical ventilation, which is associated with a high mortality. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) offers an alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation, though its role in both de novo AHRF and pandemic viral pneumonia has been controversial. Our group has previously demonstrated that NIV delivered by helmet reduces endotracheal intubation rates and improves mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome when compared to facemask NIV in a randomized controlled clinical trial (1). Limited data are available on the comparative efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support strategies in patients with AHRF due to Covid-19. NIV by helmet interface offers a promising strategy for these patients and may avert the need for endotracheal intubation. METHODS: All patients with Covid-19 associated AHRF admitted to the intensive care unit and managed initially with noninvasive respiratory support between March 1 and July 31, 2020 were identified. Those who received helmet NIV were matched with patients who received HFNC (high flow nasal cannula) using propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio without replacement. Baseline characteristics and therapies that differed on univariable analysis were used for matching. After matching, univariable analysis was conducted comparing the HFNC and helmet NIV groups. RESULTS: 78 patients initially managed with HFNC and 31 patients managed with helmet NIV (excluding 7 patients who received helmet NIV after intubation) were identified. Matching resulted in similar groups according to baseline characteristics and therapies received. The primary composite outcome of intubation or inhospital mortality occurred in 20 (64.5%) patients in the helmet group and 20 (64.5%) patients in the control group (absolute difference, 0%;95% CI,-23.4% to 23.4%;p=1.00). In-hospital mortality in the helmet NIV group was similar to that of the HFNC control group (absolute difference-9.7%;95% CI,-34.4% to 15.0%;p=0.45). In patients treated with helmet NIV, gas exchange improved significantly following application with an increase in the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen from 72 to 141 (mean difference, 69;95% CI 26 to 112;p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: While limited by the small sample size and observational nature, there was no significant difference observed in outcomes of patients with Covid-19 associated AHRF managed with helmet NIV compared to HFNC. After application of helmet NIV, a significant improvement in gas exchange was observed. REFERENCES: 1. Patel BK, et al. JAMA, 2016.","PeriodicalId":388725,"journal":{"name":"TP50. TP050 COVID: NONPULMONARY CRITICAL CARE, MECHANICAL VENTILATION, BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, AND EPI","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TP50. TP050 COVID: NONPULMONARY CRITICAL CARE, MECHANICAL VENTILATION, BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, AND EPI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2021.203.1_meetingabstracts.a2599","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

RATIONALE: A high percentage of patients with Covid-19 associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) receive invasive mechanical ventilation, which is associated with a high mortality. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) offers an alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation, though its role in both de novo AHRF and pandemic viral pneumonia has been controversial. Our group has previously demonstrated that NIV delivered by helmet reduces endotracheal intubation rates and improves mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome when compared to facemask NIV in a randomized controlled clinical trial (1). Limited data are available on the comparative efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support strategies in patients with AHRF due to Covid-19. NIV by helmet interface offers a promising strategy for these patients and may avert the need for endotracheal intubation. METHODS: All patients with Covid-19 associated AHRF admitted to the intensive care unit and managed initially with noninvasive respiratory support between March 1 and July 31, 2020 were identified. Those who received helmet NIV were matched with patients who received HFNC (high flow nasal cannula) using propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio without replacement. Baseline characteristics and therapies that differed on univariable analysis were used for matching. After matching, univariable analysis was conducted comparing the HFNC and helmet NIV groups. RESULTS: 78 patients initially managed with HFNC and 31 patients managed with helmet NIV (excluding 7 patients who received helmet NIV after intubation) were identified. Matching resulted in similar groups according to baseline characteristics and therapies received. The primary composite outcome of intubation or inhospital mortality occurred in 20 (64.5%) patients in the helmet group and 20 (64.5%) patients in the control group (absolute difference, 0%;95% CI,-23.4% to 23.4%;p=1.00). In-hospital mortality in the helmet NIV group was similar to that of the HFNC control group (absolute difference-9.7%;95% CI,-34.4% to 15.0%;p=0.45). In patients treated with helmet NIV, gas exchange improved significantly following application with an increase in the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen from 72 to 141 (mean difference, 69;95% CI 26 to 112;p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: While limited by the small sample size and observational nature, there was no significant difference observed in outcomes of patients with Covid-19 associated AHRF managed with helmet NIV compared to HFNC. After application of helmet NIV, a significant improvement in gas exchange was observed. REFERENCES: 1. Patel BK, et al. JAMA, 2016.
头盔无创通气与高流量鼻插管治疗Covid-19相关急性低氧性呼吸衰竭
理由:高比例的Covid-19相关急性低氧性呼吸衰竭(AHRF)患者接受有创机械通气,这与高死亡率相关。无创通气(NIV)提供了有创机械通气的替代方案,尽管其在新发AHRF和大流行性病毒性肺炎中的作用一直存在争议。我们的团队之前在一项随机对照临床试验中证明,与口罩NIV相比,头盔NIV降低了急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的气管插管率,并提高了死亡率(1)。关于无创呼吸支持策略对Covid-19所致AHRF患者的比较疗效的数据有限。通过头盔接口的NIV为这些患者提供了一个有前途的策略,并可能避免气管插管的需要。方法:确定2020年3月1日至7月31日期间入住重症监护病房并最初接受无创呼吸支持治疗的所有Covid-19相关AHRF患者。使用倾向评分将接受头盔NIV的患者与接受HFNC(高流量鼻插管)的患者按1:1的比例进行匹配,不进行更换。在单变量分析中,基线特征和不同的治疗方法被用于匹配。匹配后,对HFNC组和头盔NIV组进行单变量分析。结果:78例患者最初采用HFNC治疗,31例患者采用头盔NIV治疗(不包括7例插管后使用头盔NIV的患者)。根据基线特征和接受的治疗方法进行匹配,得出相似的组。头盔组20例(64.5%)患者和对照组20例(64.5%)患者出现插管或住院死亡的主要复合结局(绝对差值为0%;95% CI,-23.4% ~ 23.4%;p=1.00)。头盔NIV组的住院死亡率与HFNC对照组相似(绝对差异为9.7%;95% CI,-34.4% ~ 15.0%;p=0.45)。在使用头盔NIV治疗的患者中,气体交换显著改善,动脉氧分压与吸入氧分压之比从72增加到141(平均差为69;95% CI为26至112;p=0.003)。结论:尽管受样本量小和观察性的限制,与HFNC相比,头盔NIV治疗的Covid-19相关AHRF患者的结局没有显著差异。应用头盔NIV后,观察到气体交换有显着改善。引用:1。Patel BK,等。《美国医学会杂志》,2016年版。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信