|
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 25
| Issue : 7 | Page : 1088-1093 |
|
Role and limitations of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: An observational study
P Kucukdemirci-Kaya1, I Kilic1, M Kaya2, N Kelebek-Girgin1
1 Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation Bursa Uludag Faculty of Medicine, Bursa City Hospital, Bursa, Turkey
2 Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Bursa City Hospital, Bursa, Turkey
| Date of Submission | 01-Jul-2021 |
| Date of Acceptance | 23-May-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 20-Jul-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. P Kucukdemirci-Kaya
Bursa Uludag Universty Faculty of Medicine, 16059 Görükle / Bursa
Turkey
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_1646_21
 Abstract | | |
Background: The management of acute respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients and the role and limitations of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT) remain unclear. Aim: This study aimed to investigate the effect of HFNOT, identify the characteristics of patients who will benefit from therapy, and determine monitoring strategies to decide on endotracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19. Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and required HFNOT for at least 2 days between 20 March 2020 and 20 June 2020. The exclusion criteria were a severe respiratory failure, reduced levels of consciousness, combination with other noninvasive ventilation strategies, and exhaustion. The patients were followed up until ICU discharge. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with COVID-19 who were successfully weaned from HFNOT, whereas failure comprised intubation or death on HFNOT. Results: Thirty-five subjects (24 males, mean-age: 61.62, standard deviation: 14.9 yr.) were included in the study. A total of 20/35 (57.1%) subjects survived to discharge. C-reactive-protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were significantly increased in the treatment failure group (CRP; effect size (r):0.35, P: 0.037, IL-6; r: 0.37, P: 0.03). Although there was a difference between repeated measures of partial-pressure-of-oxygen/fraction-of-inspired-oxygen (PaO2/FiO2:P/F) rates (partial-eta-squared (ηp2):0.79, P < 0.001), no difference was found between carbon dioxide levels (ηp2:0.29, p: 0.44). There was also no difference between ROX (ratio-of-oxygen-saturation/FiO2 to respiratory-rate) rates (Kendall's W: 0.33 P = 0.310). Conclusion: In COVID-19 patients with mild-to-moderate dyspnea and hypoxemia who are nonresponsive to conventional-oxygen-therapies, the initial approach may involve the use of HFNOT. In this study, patient monitoring could be performed with ROX and P/F ratios, and the effectiveness of the treatment could be decided by looking at these rates in the second hour. Prolongation of the period and awake prone positioning did not improve the outcome.
Keywords: Acute respiratory failure, awake prone positioning, COVID-19, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, intensive care unit
How to cite this article:
Kucukdemirci-Kaya P, Kilic I, Kaya M, Kelebek-Girgin N. Role and limitations of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: An observational study. Niger J Clin Pract 2022;25:1088-93 |
How to cite this URL:
Kucukdemirci-Kaya P, Kilic I, Kaya M, Kelebek-Girgin N. Role and limitations of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: An observational study. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 15];25:1088-93. Available from: https://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2022/25/7/1088/351454 |
| Background | |  |
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 named COVID-19), a highly transmissible respiratory virus, has become a worldwide pandemic and as of 1 December 2020, 61.8 million cases and 1.4 million deaths have been reported.[1] Although most patients present with mild respiratory symptoms, 25%–34% of them have serious symptoms such as acute respiratory failure (ARF), acute respiratory failure syndrome (ARDS), septic shock, and multiorgan failure.[2],[3] In serious COVID-19 pneumonia, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is frequently seen, and oxygen administration forms the basis of supportive therapy for these patients.[4] In recent years, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT) has become prominent in the treatment of respiratory failure.[4],[5] This noninvasive support system provides a higher concentration and flow of oxygen, resulting in decreasing anatomic dead space by preventing rebreathing and ensuring a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) effect.[5] In addition, the prone position, which is known to improve oxygenation by reducing shunt fraction and recruiting atelectatic lung tissue, can be applied.[4],[6] However, in COVID-19, the usage of HFNOT is highly controversial because of concerns about the benefits and risks of aerosol dispersion.[4],[7] The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 guidelines provide a weak recommendation for the preferential use of HFNOT over other noninvasive ventilation strategies in patients refractory to conventional oxygen therapy (COT).[7],[8]
Direct cytopathic effects of the virus on pneumocytes as opposed to inflammatory injury and virus-induced decreases in surfactant levels causing atelectasis are some of the unique pathologic findings seen in patients with COVID-19.[9] Hypoxemia is the hallmark of pulmonary derangement of the disease; in fact, a case series of COVID-19 patients demonstrated the presence of significant hypoxemia with no sign of respiratory distress (''silent hypoxemia'').[9],[10] These patients without respiratory distress try to compensate for impaired gas diffusion by increasing minute ventilation with preserved lung compliance, which may lead to extreme hypocapnia.[11] Despite profound hypoxemic respiratory failure being the dominating clinical feature of COVID-19,[12] the management of hypoxemia is still controversial. However, HFNOT use and awake prone positioning recommendations were based on limited clinical data.[9]
This study aimed to investigate the effect of HFNOT, identify the characteristics of patients who will benefit from therapy, and determine monitoring strategies to decide on endotracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19.
| Materials | | |
Study design
We conducted a prospective observational study that was approved by the Bursa City Hospital Ethical Committee (no: 2020-3/13)
Inclusion criteria
Adult subjects admitted to any of the adult ICUs at our facility with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection and respiratory failure requiring HFNOT for at least 2 days between 20 March 2020 and 20 June 2020 were included in this study. COVID-19 was confirmed by a positive result on a reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction assay of a specimen collected on a nasopharyngeal swab, and respiratory failure was defined as a respiratory rate ≥30 breaths per min with oxygen saturation ≤92% despite oxygen at 15 L/min via reservoir bag and/or arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio <150.
Exclusion criteria
Individuals were excluded if they (1) had severe respiratory failure; (2) were unconscious or confused; (3) had received HFNOT or mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive) support when they were admitted to the hospital; (4) were administered a combination of HFNOT and other noninvasive ventilation strategies; or (5) were exhausted.
HFNC protocol
Heated and humidified HFNOT was exclusively provided within the ICU. The patients wore surgical masks, and all personnel were supplied with personal protective equipment, including N95 masks and visors. HFNOT was delivered either by a Hamilton C3 ventilator (Hamilton Medical AG, Bonaduz, Switzerland) or Airvo 2 (Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Irvine, California, USA) machine. The flow was initiated at 50–80 L/min with FiO2 0,6–1.0, titrated to aim for oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≥88%.
Data collection
Demographic data (age and gender) of the subjects, their comorbidities, acute physiology, and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) scores, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores (while on initial HFNOT), whether they remained in the prone position for at least 12/24 h during HFNOT, lung tomography Type I (L type) or Type II (H type), acute phase reactants admitted to the ICU (ferritin, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin and interleukin-6), partial-pressure-of-oxygen/fraction-of-inspired-oxygen (PaO2/FiO2:P/F) ratios (initial (P/F1), after; 2 h (P/F2), 1 day (P/F3), and 2 days (P/F4), partial carbon dioxide pressures initial (PaCO21)), after; 2 hours (PaCO22), 1 day (PaCO23) and 2 days (PaCO24), ROX (ratio of oxygen saturation/FiO2 to respiratory rate) rates after; 2 hours (ROX1), 1 day (ROX2), and 2 days (ROX3) and outcome (patients who were successfully weaned from HFNOT and discharged from the ICU were defined as the success group and those who comprised intubation or death on HFNOT were defined as the failure group) were recorded. The use of antiviral medication, sedatives, and antipsychotics was also recorded during HFNOT.
Primary outcome
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a successful outcome (weaned from HFNOT and discharged from the ICU). Failure was defined as the need for intubation or death while on HFNOT.
Secondary outcomes
We assessed the following secondary outcomes:
- Effects of prone positioning and lung phenotypes on the outcome.
- Prognostic values of acute-phase reactants.
- Monitoring strategies determined for HFNOT.
- Oxygenation and carbon dioxide wash-out after initial HFNOT.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables are expressed as the mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range) and n (%), depending on the normality of the distribution for continuous variables; the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to test the normality of the distribution for continuous variables. Comparisons between two groups (treatment success vs failure) were analyzed by an independent t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test. A repeated-measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse–Geisser correction determined the P/F and CO2 differences between time points. Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed which measurement differed. The Chi-square test of independence was used to determine the relationship between two nominal (sex, prone position, and lung phenotype) variables. The Friedman test was used for repeated measures of ROX. Data analysis was conducted with statistical package for social science (SPSS) statistical software (SPSS 26.0: SPSS; Chicago, II, USA), and P values of <0.05 and <0.0125 (for Bonferroni correction) were considered to be significant.
| Results | | |
Patient population and characteristics
Between 20 March 2020 and 20 June 2020, 284 subjects with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were admitted to intensive care. HFNOT was initiated in 126 subjects, and we excluded sixty-two of them who needed intermittent CPAP treatment. Thirty-five patients who only received HFNOT as NIV for a minimum of 2 days were included in the study. The patient characteristics are shown in [Table 1]. | Table 1: Overall patient characteristics and comparisons between the treatment success and treatment failure groups
Click here to view |
Primary outcome: proportion of patients with a successful outcome
A total of 57.1% (n: 20) of these patients recovered after HFNOT, and they were discharged to service within 14 days, whereas 14 (40%) patients were intubated during HFNOT because of intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV) requirements; sudden cardiac death occurred during the treatment of one patient (2.9%).
Secondary outcomes
The prone position and lung phenotypes
Thirteen subjects were placed in the prone position two or more times for a minimum of 12 h a day. A total of 5/13 (25%) subjects survived to be discharged with HFNOT. Prone positioning was not higher in the treatment success group than in the treatment failure group (5/13 vs 11/13, Odds Ratio: OR: 0.29, p: 0.173). When patients were classified according to their lung tomography [Figure 1], 45.7% (n: 16) of the patients were classified as Type I (L type), and 54.3% (n: 19) were classified as Type II (H type) [Figure 1]. There was no significant difference in the H type to L type ratio between the treatment success and failure groups (OR: 0.24, P: 0.11).
Prognostic values of acute phase reactants
The levels of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein were significantly increased in the treatment failure group on admission (P = 0.03, pP = 0.037, respectively). No significant difference was found when compared according to ferritin and procalcitonin levels (P: 0.95, P: 0.11).
Monitoring strategies for HFNOT
Both of the P/F and ROX ratios measured at different time points were significantly higher in the treatment success group than the treatment failure group (P/F; P/F(1) (initial with COT); 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 32.16–137.71, p: 0.04, P/F(2) (2 hours after HFNOT); CI: 53.40–162.63, P: 0.01, P/F(3) (1 day after HFNOT); CI: 87.06–198.63, P < 0.01, P/F(4) (2 days after HFNOT); CI: 137.73–264.47, P < 0.01) (ROX; ROX(1) (2 hours after HFNOT); CI: 98.52–171, P < 0.01, ROX(2) (1 day after HFNOT); CI: 99.7–177, P < 0.01, ROX(3) (2 days after HFNOT); r: 0.79, P < 0.01) [Figure 2] and [Figure 3].
Oxygenation and carbon dioxide washout after initial HFNOT
According to repeated measures ANOVA (F (1.622, 55.161) = 15.313 P < 0.01) with the post hoc test, P/F(1) rates were different than all measured P/F rates after HFNOT (P/F(1) vs P/F(2) P < 0.01, P/F(1) vs P/F(3) P < 0.01, P/F(1) vs P/F(4) p: 0.01). There was no significant difference between the other P/F rates (P/F(2) vs P/F(3) P: 0.59, P/F(2) vs P/F(4) P: 0.17, P/F(3) vs P/F(4) P = 0.4). Additionally, there was no significant difference between ROX rates at different time points (x2 (2) = 2.341 P = 0.310). These two statistical results were associated with improvement in oxygenation, and adequacy of oxygenation could be decided by looking at these rates in the second hour after initial HFNOT. Arterial blood gas partial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) levels at different times (PaCO2(1): initial, PaCO2(2): 2 hours after HFNOT, PaCO2(3): 1 day after HFNOT, PaCO2(4): and 2 days after HFNOT) were not significantly different between the treatment success and failure groups (F (2.864, 97.38) = 0.902, p: 0.439). PaCO2 measurements were compared with repeated measures ANOVA, and there was no significant difference observed (with the Greenhouse Geisser correction) associated with HFNOT having a considerable effect on carbon dioxide washout in COVID-19 patients.
| Discussion | | |
In the absence of an evidence base, many reports based on expert opinion and previous studies demonstrating that HFNOT is associated with more ventilator-free days and lower mortality and reintubation rates in acute hypoxemic respiratory failures as a result of various causes except COVID-19 have been published referencing the role and limitations of HFNOT in COVID-19.[13],[14] We suggest that for spontaneously breathing COVID-19 patients with mild-to-moderate dyspnea and hypoxemia, who are nonresponsive to COT, the initial approach may involve the use of HFNOT based on our clinical data.
The evidence for awake prone positioning is limited to case series data and small observational studies with heterogeneous approaches to noninvasive respiratory support. These reports have demonstrated short-term improvements in oxygen requirements (PaO2) and demand (FiO2) with no harm to patients.[15] Prone positioning with HFNOT in our subjects did not improve outcomes. This finding might be explained by prone positioning applied, which had lower P/F rates.
Gattinoni and colleagues describe two time-related phenotypes in COVID-19 and accordingly recommended different respiratory failure management.[10] There was no difference according to lung phenotypes between the treatment success and failure groups. This is the first report, to our knowledge, to describe outcomes associated with these phenotypes in HFNOT.
We analyzed disease severity with regard to inflammation markers. Similar to the findings from other studies,[16],[17] CRP and IL-6 were higher in the treatment failure group.
As with other NIV strategies, delay in initiating invasive ventilation via tracheal intubation caused by inappropriate perseverance with HFNOT may result in increased ICU mortality and worsened outcomes.[5] Therefore, clinicians need to determine the correct monitoring protocols. However, extreme hypocapnic hypoxia and respiratory alkalosis in patients with respiratory failure have previously been relatively uncommon.[11] Respiratory alkalosis shifts the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve to the left, thereby increasing the oxygen affinity of hemoglobin, which is evident from a decrease in the P50 value and an increase in arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2). Additionally, the alveolar gas equation predicts decreased alveolar CO2 tension (PACO2). For all these mechanisms, Ottestad and SΦvik argue that it is impossible to infer from SpO2, the degree of hypoxemia and consequently the severity of respiratory failure without knowledge of the accompanying PaCO2 value.[11] A new index termed “ROX,” defined as the ratio of oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/FiO2 to respiratory rate, has been recommended for monitoring HFNOT in some reports.[4] We found that ROX ratios were as reliable as P/F ratios to predict clinical stage, and better P/F and ROX rates were associated with better outcomes.
HFNOT has emerged as a noninvasive strategy for improving oxygenation and carbon dioxide clearance relative to other NIV strategies.[7] Similar to the findings from other studies,[4],[7],[18] the P/F ratio improved after initial HFNOT in our study, but we did not find differences in the improvement of the P/F ratio with prolonged treatment time. However, we did not find a considerable effect on carbon dioxide washout, unlike previous studies.[19]
A limitation of this study was that Type L and Type H patients were identified by CT scan. Second, we did not report flow and FiO2 changes to investigate the weaning period. Future studies are needed to understand the role and limitations of HFNOT in large populations. Last, we were unable to measure esophageal pressures during HFNOT.
In summary, appropriately selected patients with COVID-19 ARF frequently responded to HFNOT. Patient monitoring could be performed with ROX and P/F ratios. It was determined that the effectiveness of the treatment could be decided by looking at these rates in the second hour, and prolongation of the period and prone position would not improve the outcome.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | |
| 2. | Wang D, Hu B, Hu C, Zhu F, Liu X, Zhang J, et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020;323:1061-9.  |
| 3. | Goyal P, Choi JJ, Pinheiro LC, Schenck EJ, Chen R, Jabri A, et al. Clinical characteristics of Covid-19 in New York City. N Engl J Med 2020;382:2372-4. |
| 4. | Gürün Kaya A, Öz M, Erol S, Çiftçi F, Çiledağ A, Kaya A. High flow nasal cannula in COVID-19: A literature review. Tuberk Toraks 2020;68:168-74. |
| 5. | Ashraf-Kashani N, Kumar R. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy. Br J Anaesth Education 2017;17:63-7. |
| 6. | Nishimura M. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy devices. Respiratory Care 2019;64:735-42. |
| 7. | Agarwal A, Basmaji J, Muttalib F, Granton D, Chaudhuri D, Chetan D, et al. High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: Systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission. J Can Anesth 2020;67:1217-48. |
| 8. | Alhazzani W, Moller MH, Arabi YM, Loeb M, Ng M, Fan E. et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically III Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 ( COVID-19). Critical Care Medicine 2020;48:e440-469. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004363. |
| 9. | Navas-Blanco JR, & Dudaryk R. Management of respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 infection. BMC Anesthesiol 2020;20:177. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01095-7. |
| 10. | Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Caironi P, Busana M, Romitti F, Brazzi L, et al. COVID-19 pneumonia: Different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? Intensive Care Med 2020;46:1099-102. |
| 11. | Ottestad W, SΦvik S. COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure: What can we learn from aviation medicine? Br J Anaesth 2020;125:e 280-341. |
| 12. | Sherren PB, Ostermann M, Agarwal S, Meadows CIS, Ioannou N, Camporota L. COVID-19-related organ dysfunction and management strategies on the intensive care unit: A narrative rewiew. Br J Anaesth 2020;125:912-25. |
| 13. | Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, Girault C, Ragot S, Perbet S, et al. High flow oxygen through nasal cannula in hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2185-96. |
| 14. | Rochwerg B, Granton D, Wang DX, Helviz Y, Einav S, Frat JP, et al. High flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic rewiew and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2019;45:563-72. |
| 15. | Ding I, Wang I, Ma W, He H. Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: A multi-centre prospective cohort study. Crit Care 2020;24:28. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2738-5. |
| 16. | Abou-Arab O, Bennis Y, Gauthier P, Boudot C, Bourdenet G, Gubler B, Beyls C, et al. Association between inflammation, angiopoietins, and disease severity in critically ill COVID-19 patients: A prospective study. Br J Anaesth 2021;126:e127-30. |
| 17. | Liu F, Li L, Xu M, Wu J, Luo D, Zhu Y, et al. Prognostic value of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin in patients with COVID-19. J Clin Virol 2020;127:104370. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv. 2020.104370. |
| 18. | Calligaro GL, Lalla U, Audley G. The utility of high-flow nasal oxygen for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in are source-constrained settings: A multi-centre prospective observational study. E Clin Med 2020;28:100570. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100570. |
| 19. | Sivieri ME, Eichenwald E, Bakri SM, Abbasi S. Effect of high frequency oscillatory high flow nasal cannula on carbon dioxide clearance in a premature infant lung model: A bench study. Pediatr Pulmonol 2019;54:436-43. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24216. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1]
|
