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

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Teresa Michi, Chiara Mattana, Luca S Menga, Maria Grazia Bocci, Melania Cesarano, Tommaso Rosà, Maria Rosaria Gualano, Jonathan Montomoli, Savino Spadaro, Matteo Tosato, Elisabetta Rota, Francesco Landi, Salvatore L Cutuli, Eloisa S Tanzarella, Gabriele Pintaudi, Edoardo Piervincenzi, Giuseppe Bello, Tommaso Tonetti, Paola Rucci, Gennaro De Pascale, Salvatore M Maggiore, Domenico Luca Grieco, Giorgio Conti, Massimo Antonelli
{"title":"Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial.","authors":"Teresa Michi,&nbsp;Chiara Mattana,&nbsp;Luca S Menga,&nbsp;Maria Grazia Bocci,&nbsp;Melania Cesarano,&nbsp;Tommaso Rosà,&nbsp;Maria Rosaria Gualano,&nbsp;Jonathan Montomoli,&nbsp;Savino Spadaro,&nbsp;Matteo Tosato,&nbsp;Elisabetta Rota,&nbsp;Francesco Landi,&nbsp;Salvatore L Cutuli,&nbsp;Eloisa S Tanzarella,&nbsp;Gabriele Pintaudi,&nbsp;Edoardo Piervincenzi,&nbsp;Giuseppe Bello,&nbsp;Tommaso Tonetti,&nbsp;Paola Rucci,&nbsp;Gennaro De Pascale,&nbsp;Salvatore M Maggiore,&nbsp;Domenico Luca Grieco,&nbsp;Giorgio Conti,&nbsp;Massimo Antonelli","doi":"10.1186/s40560-023-00669-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":16123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10195662/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-023-00669-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

头盔无创通气与高流量鼻吸氧治疗COVID-19患者的长期疗效:一项随机试验
背景:头盔无创通气(NIV)治疗患者的长期结果尚不清楚:当低氧血症患者应用无创通气时,存在有关患者自身肺损伤风险和延迟插管的安全问题。我们评估了接受头盔NIV或高流量鼻吸氧治疗COVID-19低氧性呼吸衰竭患者的6个月结局。方法:在这项预先指定的随机试验中,对头盔NIV与高流量鼻氧(HENIVOT)进行分析,在入组6个月后评估临床状态、身体表现(6分钟步行测试和30秒椅子站立测试)、呼吸功能和生活质量(EuroQoL五维度五水平问卷、EuroQoL VAS、SF36和DSM创伤后应激障碍检查表)。结果:80例存活患者中,71例(89%)完成随访,35例接受头盔NIV, 36例接受高流量氧气。生命体征(N = 4)、体能(N = 18)、呼吸功能(N = 27)、生活质量(N = 21)、实验室检查(N = 15)各项指标组间差异无统计学意义。关节痛明显低于头盔组(16%比55%,p = 0.002)。结论:在COVID-19低氧性呼吸衰竭患者中,使用头盔NIV或高流量氧气治疗6个月时的生活质量和功能结果相似。需要有创机械通气与较差的预后相关。这些数据表明,HENIVOT试验中使用的头盔NIV可以安全地用于低氧血症患者。试验注册于2020年8月6日在clinicaltrials.gov注册,编号NCT04502576。
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
Journal of Intensive Care
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
1.40%
发文量
51
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Intensive Care" is an open access journal dedicated to the comprehensive coverage of intensive care medicine, providing a platform for the latest research and clinical insights in this critical field. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including intensive and critical care, trauma and surgical intensive care, pediatric intensive care, acute and emergency medicine, perioperative medicine, resuscitation, infection control, and organ dysfunction. Recognizing the importance of cultural diversity in healthcare practices, "Journal of Intensive Care" also encourages submissions that explore and discuss the cultural aspects of intensive care, aiming to promote a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to patient care. By fostering a global exchange of knowledge and expertise, the journal contributes to the continuous improvement of intensive care practices worldwide.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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