Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure by covid-19: A retrospective study of the feasibility, safety and outcomes.
Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure by covid-19: A retrospective study of the feasibility, safety and outcomes.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.resp.2022.103842
复制
发表时间：
2022-04
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Yamaguti WP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Costa WNDS;Miguel JP;Prado FDS;Lula LHSM;Amarante GAJ;Righetti RF;Yamaguti WP
无创通气（NIV）和高流量鼻插管（HFNC）是治疗急性呼吸衰竭的主要方法。本研究旨在评价NIV和HFNC在COVID-19所致急性低氧性呼吸衰竭（AHRF）患者中的疗效、安全性和适用性。在这项回顾性研究中，我们监测了NIV和HFNC对COVID-19引起的AHRF患者治疗前、治疗期间和治疗后SpO 2和呼吸频率、住院时间、气管插管率和死亡率的影响。此外，来自直接参与协助COVID-19患者和非COVID-19患者的物理治疗师的RT-PCR数据。62.2%的患者接受HFNC治疗。NIV和HFNC治疗期间和治疗后ROX指数均升高（P < 0.05）。SpO 2在NIV治疗期间升高（P < 0.05），但在治疗后没有维持（P = 0.17）。此外，NIV（P = 0.95）或HFNC（P = 0.60）治疗期间或之后的呼吸频率无差异。NIV组的死亡率为35.7%，HFNC组为21.4%（P = 0.45），而NIV组的总气管插管率为57.1%，HFNC组为69.6%（P = 0.49）。在NIV治疗期间发生了2例不良事件，在HFNC治疗期间发生了8例不良事件。直接参与协助COVID-19患者和非COVID-19患者的SARS-COV-2检测阳性的物理治疗师没有差异（P = 0.81）。NIV和HFNC在重症监护病房的应用是可行的，并与良好的结果。此外，物理治疗师感染SARS-CoV-2的情况没有增加。
Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are the main forms of treatment for acute respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect, safety, and applicability of the NIV and HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19. In this retrospective study, we monitored the effect of NIV and HFNC on the SpO2 and respiratory rate before, during, and after treatment, length of stay, rates of endotracheal intubation, and mortality in patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19. Additionally, data regarding RT-PCR from physiotherapists who were directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non−COVID-19. 62.2 % of patients were treated with HFNC. ROX index increased during and after NIV and HFNC treatment (P < 0.05). SpO2 increased during NIV treatment (P < 0.05), but was not maintained after treatment (P = 0.17). In addition, there was no difference in the respiratory rate during or after the NIV (P = 0.95) or HFNC (P = 0.60) treatment. The mortality rate was 35.7 % for NIV vs 21.4 % for HFNC (P = 0.45), while the total endotracheal intubation rate was 57.1 % for NIV vs 69.6 % for HFNC (P = 0.49). Two adverse events occurred during treatment with NIV and eight occurred during treatment with HFNC. There was no difference in the physiotherapists who tested positive for SARS−COV-2 directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non−COVID-19 ones (P = 0.81). The application of NIV and HFNC in the critical care unit is feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. In addition, there was no increase in the infection of physiotherapists with SARS-CoV-2.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
24.3
作者：
Franco, Cosimo;Facciolongo, Nicola;Nava, Stefano
通讯作者：
Nava, Stefano
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Huang, Chaolin;Wang, Yeming;Cao, Bin
通讯作者：
Cao, Bin
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Lazzeri, Marta;Lanza, Andrea;Frigerio, Pamela
通讯作者：
Frigerio, Pamela
DOI：
10.1164/rccm.201803-0589oc
发表时间：
2019-06-01
影响因子：
24.7
作者：
Roca, Oriol;Caralt, Berta;Ricard, Jean-Damien
通讯作者：
Ricard, Jean-Damien
DOI：
10.1186/s13054-020-03231-8
发表时间：
2020-09-23
期刊：
Critical care (London, England)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Kaur R;Weiss TT;Perez A;Fink JB;Chen R;Luo F;Liang Z;Mirza S;Li J
通讯作者：
Li J