Next Article in Journal
Real-Time Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Score Level versus Ultra-Widefield Leakage Index-Guided Management of Diabetic Retinopathy: Two-Year Outcomes from the Randomized PRIME Trial
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluating the Role of the Interleukin-23/17 Axis in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Association between ABCA1 Gene Polymorphisms and Plasma Lipid Concentration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Long COVID-19 Pulmonary Sequelae and Management Considerations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/jpm11090884
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Role of Noninvasive Respiratory Management in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia

by
Evangelia Akoumianaki
1,*,†,
Eleni Ischaki
2,†,
Konstantinos Karagiannis
3,†,
Ioanna Sigala
2,† and
Spyros Zakyn-thinos
2,4
1
Department of Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Heraklion, 71500 Crete, Greece
2
First Department of Intensive Care Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Evaggelismos General Hospital, 10676 Athens, Greece
3
Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital of Heraklion, 71500 Crete, Greece
4
School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 10676 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Equal contributed—authors are listed in alphabetical order.
J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(9), 884; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11090884
Submission received: 23 August 2021 / Accepted: 31 August 2021 / Published: 3 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Personalized Medicine for Covid-19 Patients-Clinical Considerations)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the principal cause of hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation and death in severe COVID-19 infection. Nearly half of intubated patients with COVID-19 eventually die. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) and Noninvasive Ventilation (NIV) constitute valuable tools to avert endotracheal intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who do not respond to conventional oxygen treatment. Sparing Intensive Care Unit beds and reducing intubation-related complications may save lives in the pandemic era. The main drawback of HFNO and/or NIV is intubation delay. Cautious selection of patients with severe hypoxemia due to COVID-19 disease, close monitoring and appropriate employment and titration of HFNO and/or NIV can increase the rate of success and eliminate the risk of intubation delay. At the same time, all precautions to protect the healthcare personnel from viral transmission should be taken. In this review, we summarize the evidence supporting the application of HFNO and NIV in severe COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, analyse the risks associated with their use and provide a path for their proper implementation.

1. Introduction

During the last year, SARS-COV-2 has rapidly spread worldwide, causing millions of deaths. Most hospitalized patients present with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) and a small proportion of them require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). The mortality in patients who require invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) due to severe COVID-19 pneumonia is around 40%. The high mortality rate along with the shortage of ICU beds render the avoidance of intubation, when feasible, essential for prognosis [1]. In this context, noninvasive respiratory treatment modalities, such as High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and Noninvasive Ventilation, have been widely adopted in patients with hypoxemic ARF secondary to COVID-19. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) is a noninvasive respiratory support modality that delivers warm, humidified oxygen at a maximum flow rate of 60 L/min and up to 100% of the inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) through nasal probes [2,3]. In comparison to conventional oxygen treatment where the flow rates are low (< 15 L/min), the high flow rates of HFNO more adequately meet the increased inspiratory demands of patients with respiratory distress. Furthermore, high-flow inspiratory rates minimize the entrainment of room air and ensure a higher and more precise FiO2. Additional pathophysiologic benefits include the generation of low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), allowing the recruitment of alveolar units and the reduction of dead space by washing out carbon dioxide from the upper airways [3,4]. Noninvasive Ventilation (NIV) refers to the application of mechanical ventilatory support using a nasal, oronasal, or full-face mask, or a helmet [5]. Its beneficial physiologic effects consist of hypoxemia improvement and respiratory muscles unloading. The most commonly used NIV modalities are continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). Although there is substantial controversy as to whether CPAP can be considered as NIV, in this document NIV will be used to refer to both BiPAP and CPAP if not otherwise specified. The use of BiPAP has become the standard of care in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure due to acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), while NIV (CPAP or BiPAP) is considered a treatment option for acute respiratory failure due to cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (CPO) [6,7]. Nevertheless, the use of NIV for hypoxemic ARF without prior chronic respiratory disease (de novo ARF), which represents the most common life-threatening complication of COVID-19, remains debatable [7].
This is a narrative review that aims to analyse all available evidence on the effectiveness and risks of NIV and HFNO in severe COVID-19 disease, and to provide a practical path for their safe application in this group of patients. We searched two databases, PubMed and Google Scholar, using the following search terms: “high flow oxygen AND COVID-19”, “high flow oxygen AND SARS-CoV 2”, “noninvasive ventilation AND COVID-19”, “noninvasive ventilation AND SARS-CoV 2” and “noninvasive respiratory management AND COVID-19”. All types of articles related to humans were included. Articles for which full text was not available, were not in English, or were not published in PubMed were excluded. From the articles retrieved in the first round of searching, additional references were identified by a manual search among the cited references.

2. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Patients with COVID-19-Associated Respiratory Failure: Evidence for Potential Benefit

There are two main outcomes of interest when assessing the value of HFNO in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19: the impact of treatment on endotracheal intubation and mortality. The available evidence indicates that HFNO prevents intubation in a considerable number of patients with severe COVID19, but, so far, this has not been clearly associated with a survival benefit.
Worldwide, a proportion of 23–64% of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia has received HFNO [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. This practice was based on the evidence originating from the era prior to SARS-Cov-2, which indicated that HFNO significantly reduced the need for endotracheal intubation in most patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. However, with the exception of one study [2], no apparent effect of HFNO on mortality or ICU length of stay has been indicated [15,16,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. In severe hypoxemia associated with COVID-19, the available data of HFNO performance come almost exclusively from retrospective observational cohorts (Table 1). HFNO managed to avert escalation of treatment and/or intubation in approximately half of the patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia (44 to 64%) [8,9,10,11,27,28,29,30]. The very few studies that compared HFNO to standard oxygen therapy found that HFNO reduced intubation and subsequent invasive MV without affecting ICU length of stay or mortality [10,11,31]. Demoule et al. matched 137 patients with severe COVID-19 who received HFNO with 137 patients who did not [11]. Significantly less patients were intubated by Day 28 in the HFNO group (55% vs. 72%, p < 0.0001). Mortality was the same between the two groups (21% in the HFNO group vs. 22% in the other). It should be noted that the studies that assessed the effect of HFNO in severe COVID-19 pneumonia were retrospective in nature and underpowered to detect a meaningful difference in mortality. We need properly designed, large-scale trials answering whether HFNO affects mortality in severe COVID-19, both directly but also indirectly, by reducing the ICU-related complications and increasing the availability of ICU beds through endotracheal intubation decrease.

3. Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients with COVID-19-Associated Respiratory Failure: Evidence for Potential Benefit

The use of NIV in COVID-19 has been mostly based on data derived from studies of patients with de novo ARF. Although the results of these studies are conflicting [32,33,34,35,36], two recent meta analyses showed a remarkable reduction in intubation rates and a statistically significant improvement in survival was demonstrated in one of them [37,38]. The main studies that investigated the management of patients with COVID-19 with NIV are presented in Table 2. One of the first observational studies for NIV use in COVID-19 reported no significant differences in 30-day mortality (approximately 30%) and risk of intubation (25–28%) between NIV, CPAP and HFNO therapy in a non-ICU environment [39]. Another large observational study in Germany reported high mortality (53%) in COVID-19 patients who received invasive MV, whereas mortality was lower in the subgroup of patients who received Noninvasive Ventilation alone (45%) [40]. Notwithstanding, in those who presented NIV failure, mortality was as high (50%) as in patients treated with invasive MV [40]. Similar results were shown by a sub-analysis from the HOPE COVID-19 registry, in which more than half of the patients who received NIV survived without the need of intubation [41]. Again, the NIV failure group of patients (16%) exhibited increased mortality compared to success (58% in hospital death rate) [41]. It is noteworthy that the majority of COVID-19 patients were treated with CPAP rather than BiPAP in these trials. Additionally, there are quite a few small-scale observational studies that suggest benefit from use of CPAP in COVID 19 hypoxemic ARF [42,43,44,45,46]. Further large-scale trials are necessary in order to identify the group of COVID-19 patients in which NIV use is more beneficial.

4. Risks of Noninvasive Respiratory Treatments in Severe COVID-19

The greatest concerns when applying noninvasive respiratory management in hypoxemic respiratory failure related to COVID-19 are the risk of delaying intubation and the spread of the virus to and among healthcare personnel.
It has been demonstrated that a substantial proportion of patients with hypoxemic ARF do not avoid invasive MV despite NIV or HFNO trials and that this happens more frequently in those with severe hypoxemia [44]. In critically ill patients with COVID-19, Menga et al. found that noninvasive oxygenation strategies were more likely to fail, compared to those with hypoxemic respiratory failure from other reasons [57]. The major concern is that NIV or HFNO failure may adversely affect the outcome, as suggested in several studies [44,58,59,60]. It seems unlikely that noninvasive respiratory management per se increases mortality in patients with severe hypoxemia. Indeed, data coming from very few, mostly observational studies indicate that, neither time from ICU admission to intubation nor noninvasive respiratory therapy adversely affected the outcome of these patients [28,29,61]. The reasonable explanation between HFNO or NIV failure and worse outcome is intubation delay and lung injury worsening. Noninvasive respiratory support cannot guarantee lung protective ventilation [62], as severely hypoxemic patients usually exhibit high respiratory drive and vigorous efforts that enhance lung injury through tidal volume increase, the pendelluft phenomenon, capillary leak and lung oedema [63,64,65,66,67]. In several studies, the magnitude of inspiratory efforts and expired tidal volumes following NIV implementation accurately predicted NIV failure and have been correlated with worsening lung injury and mortality [44,62,68,69]. Furthermore, insufficient unloading of the respiratory muscles during NIV or HFNO may harm the diaphragm and ultimately cause fatigue and respiratory arrest [70]. Therefore, when a patient with severe hypoxemia due to COVID-19 pneumonia is managed with HFNO or NIV, close monitoring of respiratory distress and continuous evaluation of predictors of failure is essential.
Both HFNO and NIV are considered aerosol-generating procedures and, as such, may spread the virus into the environment. There is extensive discussion as to whether management of patients with COVID-19 with noninvasive respiratory modalities increases the risk of healthcare personnel contamination. The available literature on this field comes mostly from simulation or observational studies conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results are mixed and inconclusive [21]. A few observational studies described viral hospital spread to HFNO and/or NIV use [39,71,72]. Environmental contamination was higher in patients treated with these modalities compared to MV with closed suction systems [73]. During a cough-simulating scenario, HFNO moderately increased the distance of droplet dispersion by an average of 0.42 m [74]. On the other hand, other investigators demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the risk of aerosol production and dispersion between spontaneous breathing, conventional oxygen treatment and HFNO or NIV therapy [75,76,77,78,79,80,81], and that these modalities do not expose healthcare workers to higher infection risk provided that they follow the appropriate personal protection precautions [82,83,84]. In a very interesting recent article by Gaeckle and coworkers, aerosol generation from healthy participants receiving oxygen via a non-humidified nasal cannula, face mask, HFNO and NIV was measured during normal breathing, talking, deep breathing and coughing [75]. NIV and HFNO did not produce a higher aerosol concentration when compared with breathing room air or non-humidified oxygen modalities [75]. Factors such as higher flow rates during HFNO, augmented positive pressures during NIV and, more importantly, poor fit of these devices to a patient´s nose or mouth carry a higher risk of viral transmission than the oxygen modality used [75,85]. In summary, the exact amount to which HFNO or NIV expose healthcare workers to viral transmission is unknown but it does not seem to differ significantly than spontaneous breathing or conventional oxygen treatments. Any hazard can be minimized if the noninvasive oxygen therapy is applied in negative pressure or well-ventilated rooms; staff wears protective equipment, including FFP3 masks; leaks around the devices are eliminated; and positive pressures and flow rates are at the minimum necessary. Notably, the addition of a simple surgical mask over HFNO may further reduce aerosol and droplet dispersion due to the exhaled gas flow and it is a recommended strategy in patients with severe COVID-19 [86]. Leonard et al demonstrated that wearing a surgical mask captured 83.2% of particles between 0.1–100 μm [86] while, in a recent experimental trial, Hamada et al. provided evidence that this strategy almost completely suppressed particle dispersion induced during coughing [87].

5. HFNO in COVID-19-Associated Respiratory Failure: Practical Aspects

One of the major concerns regarding HFNO use is the optimal place for it to be applied in order to allow a close monitoring of the patient, without increasing the risk of virus transmission among healthcare workers. Ideally, patients receiving supplemental oxygen via HFNO should be hospitalized in the ICU or in a high-dependency unit (HDU) and, preferably, in negative-pressure rooms. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused serious resource and bed limitations. Under circumstances where sparing ICU beds is vital, HFNO could be applied in the non-ICU setting, provided that all precautions against viral transmission are carefully followed and the patient is rigorously monitored to avoid any intubation delay.
In the vast majority of cases, the first step of respiratory support of a patient with COVID-19-related ARF is the application of a conventional oxygen device, such as a nasal prong, Venturi mask or non-rebreather mask. These measures are sufficient to a large extent. However, when the patient either admits with, or develops signs of acute respiratory distress, physicians should check if the criteria for imminent intubation and invasive MV are met [88] (Figure 1). If there is not any indication for intubation, HFNO should be the first choice in case of mild to moderate respiratory distress and SpO2 < 90%, despite a Venturi or non-rebreather mask [89]. The initial HFNO settings must be maximal (100% FiO2, flow rate 40–60 L·min−1 and temperature 37 °C) [88]. From a practical point of view, starting with the highest flow rate (60 L·min−1) seems a reasonable approach. Within 1 to 2 h, the HFNO settings should be titrated based on patients’ respiratory rate (<25–30 per minute), SpO2 (92–96%) and comfort [90].
One of the most challenging decisions when dealing with a patient with severe COVID-19 pneumonia is to decide if and when intubation is preferable to noninvasive support. Physicians often rely on parameters that have been associated with HFNO failure, such as a high respiratory rate; SpO2 < 88–90% under high flow rates and FiO2; use of auxiliary respiratory muscles; thoraco-abdominal asynchrony; hypercapnia (PaCO2 > 45 mmHg with pH < 7.35) [88,91]; additional organ dysfunction, as expressed by a SOFA score > 4; and mainly hemodynamic instability and an altered mental status [92]. However, when examined independently, the respiratory rate is a poor and often late marker of evolving respiratory disease [93,94]. Furthermore, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia may present without respiratory distress, despite the existence of severe hypoxemia that necessitates aggressive therapeutic correction, including mechanical ventilatory support [14,94]. Respiratory distress may be absent in patients with respiratory failure when respiratory muscle function is normal and the respiratory system mechanics are relatively preserved, which is often the case in severe COVID-19 pneumonia, especially at its early stages [94,95]. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that PaO2 is a weak stimulus of the respiratory center and dyspnoea may not occur despite severe hypoxemia [65]. Finally, when PaCO2 is low, the hypoxic ventilator response is considerably attenuated [96].
Because assessing the response to HFNO is complex, prognostic indexes have been developed based on the combination of several prognostic markers of respiratory failure. The most evaluated is the respiratory rate–oxygenation (ROX) index, which is calculated by the ratio of SpO2/FiO2 to the respiratory rate [97]. In a multicenter, retrospective study, in patients with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure, the ROX index applied at multiple times intervals after the application of HFNO aided in the identification of those patients that could ultimately be weaned from HFNO, although with different cut-off points (ROX index greater than 3.67 at 12 h after the application of HFNO was an accurate predictor of successful weaning) [29]. Conclusively, the physician should bear in mind the risk factors that have been associated with HFNO failure in COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. These include advanced age; the presence of comorbidities and a high initial SOFA score; a low Glasgow Coma Scale; high lactate, procalcitonin and serum lactate dehydrogenase at ICU admission; use of vasopressors; and a low respiratory rate–oxygenation (ROX) index at several time points following HFNO [10,29,30,57,98].
If HFNO fails, the patient should be transferred immediately to an ICU or an HDU and treated with a short NIV trial or immediately intubated and ventilated invasively. Sustaining HFNO for respiratory support in an unresponsive patient can result in undesired respiratory and cardiac complications. Instead of a specific time frame after HFNO initiation as a criterion for early or late intubation, the presence of negative prognostic indices and the inability to reverse them within 1 or 2 h after HFNO titration with maximum settings should be considered as more accurate, given the prolonged illness duration of COVID-19 respiratory failure. Besides, prolonged trials of HFNO in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure are not associated with poor clinical outcomes [29]. We should always bear in mind that patients with a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio are more likely to experience HFNO failure and this group should be ideally treated in an ICU/HDU area [8].
If the patient’s clinical status and arterial blood gases progressively improve, HFNO should be weaned gradually by first decreasing FiO2 to 40–50%, followed by a stepwise decrease in flow rate by 5–10 L·min−1 with intervals based on the patient’s respiratory parameters. If the patient remains stable for 1–2 h with FiO2 40% and a flow rate < 15 L·min−1, HFNO can be stopped safely and a venturi mask or low-flow nasal prongs can be applied [88].

6. Noninvasive Ventilation in COVID-19-Associated Respiratory Failure: Practical Aspects

The use of NIV in de novo hypoxemic ARF (non-COVID) has a considerable probability of failure—up to 50% in various studies [44,99]. Current guidelines cannot make recommendations regarding the use of NIV in hypoxemic ARF [7]. However, the LUNG-SAFE study showed that, in every day clinical practice, 15.5% of patients with hypoxemic ARF are treated with NIV as the initial management, irrespective of the severity [44].
Considering the high probability of failure, NIV-treated patients are hospitalized in an ICU environment where continuous monitoring can be established. Nevertheless, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a huge need to use noninvasive modes of ventilation outside the ICU in order to spare ICU beds. NIV is used either in the mode of CPAP or BiPAP. During the first COVID-19 wave in Italy, a “feasibility study” was conducted in order to establish that noninvasive respiratory support can be successfully applied outside an ICU [39]. Indeed, 670 patients were treated with either NIV, helmet CPAP or HFNO in a respiratory ward or respiratory high dependency unit (HDU) with a nurse:patient ratio up to 1:6 and an intubation rate of 27%, with the mortality rate being 26.9%, a quite favourable outcome [39]. Recently, Ward-COVID, a multicentre study from 31 hospitals in Italy successfully applied CPAP/NIV in 909 patients (10.4% of all patients with respiratory failure) in a ward with an NIV failure rate 37.6% [47]. There are plenty of other studies from different countries describing successful application of CPAP [42,46,48,49,50] or NIV [41,51,52] in a ward, with the vast majority of patients receiving CPAP support. However, the experience of staff in the use of these modalities, the nurse/patient ratio and the intensity of the monitoring probably are not similar in all studies.
Different studies used different inclusion criteria in order to apply NIV support in COVID-19-related ARF. Our knowledge from hypoxemic ARF in the pre-COVID-19 era suggests that application of NIV in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 < 150 mmHg carries a considerable risk of failure, with increased mortality compared to invasive MV [44]. In the pandemic era, if patients were unable to maintain oxygen saturation above 92% with conventional oxygen, a trial of NIV was offered. Oxygen supply ranging from 6 L/min up to 15 L/min with a nonrebreathing mask was used as the criterion for initiation of NIV support in different trails [39,46,50]. A PaO2/FiO2 of 100–200 mmHg, breathing frequency above 30/min, dyspnoea level and use of accessory respiratory muscles were used complementary in some trials [45,52]. However, as a general rule, patients had to be hemodynamically stable to be considered available for NIV support outside ICU. Intubation criteria were variable but generally intubation was considered if there was persistent hypoxemia, worsening or respiratory failure or lack of improvement despite NIV support, PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg, development of respiratory acidosis–hypercapnia, evidence of ongoing respiratory distress and increased breathing, hemodynamic instability and an altered mental status [43,49,51,52,53].
The vast majority of patients with COVID-19-related ARF received NIV outside the ICU in the form of CPAP. CPAP is easier to apply outside ICU, requires less expertise from personnel compared to BiPAP and can be delivered either with a CPAP valve with venturi flow system or a CPAP device. BiPAP has been preferentially used in the more severe patients with respiratory acidosis, hypercapnia, evidence of increased breathing (respiratory muscle fatigue) as well as those with a history of obstructive pulmonary disease or obesity hypoventilation syndrome [39,51,54]. Most CPAP protocols start with the CPAP set at 10 cmH2O to target an SpO2 ≥ 90% or PaO2 ≥ 60 mmHg and then adjusted according to the SpO2, respiratory distress and clinical tolerance [46]. The BiPAP setup is more demanding, as the large pressures used augments air leaks and patient–ventilator synchronization is often an issue. BiPAP is usually initiated with a PEEP range of 5–10 cmH2O and a PS of 5–10 cmH2O, targeting an expiratory tidal volume below 9 mL/kg predicted body weight [100].
The safest way is to deliver NIV with a non-vented mask (full face, oronasal or helmet) that covers the mouth and a dual circuit ventilator with a filter on the expiratory limb. In case of single-limb ventilators, a non-vented mask should be used with an antimicrobial filter placed between the interface and the exhalation port. Any effort to minimize the leaks should be made [100].
Italian guidelines support the use of a helmet interface during the pandemic, as a way to minimize personnel exposure [101]. Helmets have been studied in hypoxemic ARF as a way to increase patient tolerance and consequently the time of continuous NIV application and to apply higher PEEP more effectively, minimizing the leaks issue compared to face masks. A randomized study comparing a helmet with face mask interface in patients with ARDS stopped early because the helmet showed a reduction in intubation rate (18.2% vs. 61.5%, respectively) and in 90-day mortality (34.1% vs. 56.4%) [102]. A helmet facilitated greater PEEP and resulted in greater decrease in the respiratory rate than a face mask [102]. In the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no direct comparison between the various interfaces. Helmet CPAP has been successfully applied either in the ward [39,47,49] or HDU [43]. Helmet BiPAP applied in the ICU environment exhibited a lower intubation rate compared to HFNO [55]. However, as a helmet has a large internal volume (dead space) and high compliance, patient–ventilator asynchronies are a frequent issue in BiPAP mode. When the helmet interface is used, pressures (PEEP and pressure support) should be considerably increased (by 50%), a high flow rate should be used to avoid CO2 rebreathing and the pressurization rate should be the shortest to optimize patient–ventilation synchrony [103,104]. Continuous monitoring and fine tuning are needed.
Prediction of NIV failure is the holy grail to avoid intubation delay and increased mortality [41,44]. Till now we have evidence that PaO2/FiO2 < 150 mmHg, expiratory tidal volume > 9.5 mL/kg PBW and HACOR score > 5 at 1 h of NIV carry a high probability of NIV failure [44,62,68,69]. HACOR incorporates heart rate, pH, Glasgow coma scale, PaO2/FiO2 and respiratory rate in a composite score [105,106]. The HACOR score has not been tested specifically on COVID-19 patients. Ward-COVID, the largest today multicentre study from Italy, demonstrated NIV failure in 53% of patients with PaO2/FiO2 < 150 mmHg vs. 18% in patients with PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg [47]. Consistent with that, Coppadoro et al. showed that PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg with helmet CPAP was associated with a high probability of failure [49]. Moreover, an increase in oxygenation with CPAP treatment and a decrease in the respiratory rate (<24/min) were strong indices of success [49]. Ahmed et al. demonstrated that the CPAP failure group had a higher respiratory rate, whereas a SpO2 to FiO2 ratio ≥ 114 pre-CPAP or ≥ 180 at 30–120 min post CPAP could differentiate the success group [56]. However, none of the above can be applied as a general rule predicting NIV failure or success, and individual consideration and close monitoring of the patient are needed.

7. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen vs. Noninvasive Ventilation Patients with COVID-19-Associated Respiratory Failure

The current international guidelines vary widely concerning the optimal noninvasive respiratory support for patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia, reflecting the lack of large-scale randomized control trials in this field [107,108]. Hence, current clinical practice is based on prior experience, personal medical opinion and local availability.
In non-COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic ARF, the evidence about the ideal noninvasive respiratory support strategy are scarce. Some studies showed a reduced intubation rate with HFNO in more severely hypoxemic patients [2], while others did not demonstrate any benefit from HFNO or NIV with respect to endotracheal intubation or mortality [15,109].
Only a few studies performed a head-to-head comparison of NIV to HFNOT in COVID-19. The HENIVOT, an open-label, multicentre randomized controlled trial, compared helmet NIV with HFNO in 110 patients with moderate to severe hypoxemic ARF secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia [55]. At 28 days post randomization, NIV with a helmet did not show any significant difference in days free of respiratory support as compared to HFNO. Nevertheless, the use of a helmet significantly reduced the intubation rate and increased invasion ventilation-free days in comparison to HFNO [55]. A retrospective observational study in patients with COVID-19 did not find differences in the mortality rate between HFNO, CPAP and NIV after adjustment for confounders [39].
It is apparent that the quality of evidence with regards to the effectiveness of NIV in comparison to HFNOT for COVID-19 pneumonia is limited. This result is due to the broad variability in clinical practice and different guideline statements across countries and hospitals. Further large-scale studies are necessary to assess the optimal noninvasive respiratory support treatment in COVID-19. Currently, an ongoing randomized controlled trial, the RECOVERY–RS trial, aims to determine if CPAP or HFNO is effective compared to conventional oxygen therapy in reducing the mortality or/and intubation rate in COVID 19 patients [110].

8. Prone Position during High-Flow Nasal Oxygen or Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients with COVID-19

The favourable pathophysiological effects of prone positioning on gas exchange were depicted as early as 1974. When a patient turns from the supine to prone position, more alveolar units open as the dependent dorsal parts of the lung, which represent over 60% of the total lung mass, are more adequately ventilated, due to changes in hydrostatic pressure. Consequently, the end-expiratory lung volume may increase, ventilation distribution becomes more even, pressures are more uniformly exerted on the lungs, the ventilation–perfusion ratio improves and lung compliance increases. These effects may augment oxygenation, protect from ventilation-induced lung injury and reverse right heart failure [111]. In the last decade, the prone position was established as a therapeutic strategy in mechanically ventilated patients with severe ARDS, following the landmark PROSEVA study that demonstrated that when applied for ≥ 16 h it improves survival [112]. This finding was confirmed in subsequent meta-analyses [113,114].
Awake self-proning has been described in small observational, mostly retrospective cohorts in non-COVID-19 [115,116] and COVID-19 [117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129] patients with acute hypoxemia. Turning the awake hypoxemic patient prone was feasible, safe [117,120,125,126,130] and in most cases improved oxygenation [117,119,120,125,126,128,129], with a mean PaO2/FiO2 difference of 51.3 mmHg (95% CI 13.91–88.67) [131]. Oxygenation improvement was sustained after re-supination in patients in whom the prone position was combined with noninvasive respiratory strategies (HFNO or NIV) [117,126]. Overall, around 28% of patients eventually required invasive MV [131,132,133]. It remains inconclusive whether awake self-proning had an effect on intubation and mortality. Most investigators reported that prone sessions did not influence the intubation rates [117,121,124,125] or survival [121,124,125]. Recently, Rosén et al. conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients with COVID-19 treated with HFNO or NIV for severe hypoxemia [134]. Patients were randomly assigned to protocolized prone sessions of 16 h/day or the standard of care. The study was terminated early because the primary end-point, intubation within 30 days, did not differ between the studied groups [134]. It should be noted that only a minority of patients complied with the 16 h/day in the prone position, which is in line with the low adherence to prone reported by previous investigators [135]. Some authors have proposed dexmedetomidine as a way to increase the tolerance of prolonged prone position in awake patients with COVID-19 [136].
In summary, awake prone position is a supplemental strategy that may improve oxygenation in patients with noninvasive respiratory management of severe hypoxemia related to COVID-19. The exact timing to implement the prone sessions, their duration and frequency as well as failure criteria are not uniformly defined. Moreover, the clinical outcomes of awake prone positioning remain vague and further large multicenter randomized trials are needed to determine the effect on intubation rate and survival. Given its feasibility and absence of serious side effects, the prone position is proposed as an additional aid to improve oxygenation provided that the patient can tolerate it.

9. Limitations

The main limitations of this narrative review are related to its nature. No peer-reviewed methodology was applied in the included studies. In addition, the literature lacks randomized controlled trials, adequately investigating the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory management in patients with severe COVID-19 hypoxemia. Instead, most studies were observational and retrospective in nature. However, we included and summarized all the published data in the field. Recommendations are based on the qualitative interpretation of available evidence, previous knowledge of the efficacy of studied respiratory modalities on hypoxemia as well as the authors´ experience.

10. Conclusions

In summary, available evidence are inconclusive with respect to the real effect of HFNO and NIV on outcome of patients with severe hypoxemia as a result of SARS-COV-2. Nevertheless, the pandemic wave left no place for prospective randomized controlled trials in this setting. Based on the experience prior to COVID-19 and on the few studies conducted in patients with SARS-COV-2, nearly 50% of the patients could come through without intubation, receiving only noninvasive respiratory treatment. This percentage is not negligible if one considers the ICU beds that can be spared and the ICU-related complications that can be avoided. Further large-scale trials will identify the group of COVID-19 patients in which noninvasive respiratory management is more beneficial and the risk is minimal. It is also important to collect research data that will provide evidence for the establishment of solid predictors for NIV failure. Meanwhile, there is no reason not to exploit HFNO and/or NIV when conventional oxygen strategies fail, provided that there are no indications for imminent intubation, the patient is closely monitored and precautions to avoid intubation delay and virus transmission are respected. The resulting reduction in invasive MV and ICU burden could be lifesaving. An algorithm for the safe and efficient application of HFNO and NIV is provided (Figure 1). Finally, turning the patient prone while receiving noninvasive respiratory treatment is another weapon in the armamentarium of physicians against endotracheal intubation and invasive MV of patients with severe hypoxemia due to COVID-19.

Author Contributions

All contributing authors conceived the idea for this manuscript, searched the literature, drafted and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We received funding from the Hellenic Thoracic Society for publishing this work.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the manuscript.

References

  1. Gorman:, E.; Connolly, B.; Couper, K.; Perkins, G.D.; McAuley, D.F. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support Strategies in COVID-19. Lancet Respir. Med. 2021, 9, 553–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Frat, J.-P.; Thille, A.W.; Mercat, A.; Girault, C.; Ragot, S.; Perbet, S.; Prat, G.; Boulain, T.; Morawiec, E.; Cottereau, A.; et al. High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 2185–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Ischaki, E.; Pantazopoulos, I.; Zakynthinos, S. Nasal High Flow Therapy: A Novel Treatment Rather than a More Expensive Oxygen Device. Eur. Respir. Rev. 2017, 26, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Mauri, T.; Alban, L.; Turrini, C.; Cambiaghi, B.; Carlesso, E.; Taccone, P.; Bottino, N.; Lissoni, A.; Spadaro, S.; Volta, C.A.; et al. Optimum Support by High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Effects of Increasing Flow Rates. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 43, 1453–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mehta, S.; Hill, N.S. Noninvasive Ventilation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2001, 163, 540–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brochard, L.; Lefebvre, J.-C.; Cordioli, R.; Akoumianaki, E.; Richard, J.-C. Noninvasive Ventilation for Patients with Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure. Semin Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 35, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Rochwerg, B.; Brochard, L.; Elliott, M.W.; Hess, D.; Hill, N.S.; Nava, S.; Navalesi, P.; Antonelli, M.; Brozek, J.; Conti, G.; et al. Official ERS/ATS Clinical Practice Guidelines: Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure. Eur. Respir. J. 2017, 50, 1602426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wang, K.; Zhao, W.; Li, J.; Shu, W.; Duan, J. The Experience of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Hospitalized Patients with 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Two Hospitals of Chongqing, China. Ann. Intensive Care 2020, 10, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Patel, M.; Gangemi, A.; Marron, R.; Chowdhury, J.; Yousef, I.; Zheng, M.; Mills, N.; Tragesser, L.; Giurintano, J.; Gupta, R.; et al. Retrospective Analysis of High Flow Nasal Therapy in COVID-19-Related Moderate-to-Severe Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure. BMJ Open Respir. Res. 2020, 7, e000650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bonnet, N.; Martin, O.; Boubaya, M.; Levy, V.; Ebstein, N.; Karoubi, P.; Tandjaoui-Lambiotte, Y.; Van Der Meersch, G.; Oziel, J.; Soulie, M.; et al. High Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy to Avoid Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Study. Ann. Intensive Care 2021, 11, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Demoule, A.; Vieillard Baron, A.; Darmon, M.; Beurton, A.; Géri, G.; Voiriot, G.; Dupont, T.; Zafrani, L.; Girodias, L.; Labbé, V.; et al. High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Critically III Patients with Severe COVID-19. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 202, 1039–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Xu, Y.; Xu, Z.; Liu, X.; Cai, L.; Zheng, H.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Huang, L.; Ling, Y.; Deng, L.; et al. Clinical Findings of COVID-19 Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Units in Guangdong Province, China: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Study. Front. Med. (Lausanne) 2020, 7, 576457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yang, X.; Yu, Y.; Xu, J.; Shu, H.; Xia, J.; Liu, H.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yu, Z.; Fang, M.; et al. Clinical Course and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia in Wuhan, China: A Single-Centered, Retrospective, Observational Study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, 475–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Bhatraju, P.K.; Ghassemieh, B.J.; Nichols, M.; Kim, R.; Jerome, K.R.; Nalla, A.K.; Greninger, A.L.; Pipavath, S.; Wurfel, M.M.; Evans, L.; et al. Covid-19 in Critically Ill Patients in the Seattle Region—Case Series. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 2012–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhao, H.; Wang, H.; Sun, F.; Lyu, S.; An, Y. High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy Is Superior to Conventional Oxygen Therapy but Not to Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation on Intubation Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit. Care 2017, 21, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Rochwerg, B.; Granton, D.; Wang, D.X.; Helviz, Y.; Einav, S.; Frat, J.P.; Mekontso-Dessap, A.; Schreiber, A.; Azoulay, E.; Mercat, A.; et al. High Flow Nasal Cannula Compared with Conventional Oxygen Therapy for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2019, 45, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Ferreyro, B.L.; Angriman, F.; Munshi, L.; Del Sorbo, L.; Ferguson, N.D.; Rochwerg, B.; Ryu, M.J.; Saskin, R.; Wunsch, H.; da Costa, B.R.; et al. Association of Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies With All-Cause Mortality in Adults With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA 2020, 324, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ou, X.; Hua, Y.; Liu, J.; Gong, C.; Zhao, W. Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy in Adults with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. CMAJ 2017, 189, E260–E267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Ni, Y.-N.; Luo, J.; Yu, H.; Liu, D.; Liang, B.-M.; Liang, Z.-A. The Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Reducing the Mortality and the Rate of Endotracheal Intubation When Used before Mechanical Ventilation Compared with Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 36, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. for the Efraim Investigators and the Nine-I Study Group; Azoulay, E.; Pickkers, P.; Soares, M.; Perner, A.; Rello, J.; Bauer, P.R.; van de Louw, A.; Hemelaar, P.; Lemiale, V.; et al. Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Immunocompromised Patients: The Efraim Multinational Prospective Cohort Study. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 43, 1808–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Agarwal, A.; Basmaji, J.; Muttalib, F.; Granton, D.; Chaudhuri, D.; Chetan, D.; Hu, M.; Fernando, S.M.; Honarmand, K.; Bakaa, L.; 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. Can. J. Anesth./J. Can. Anesth. 2020, 67, 1217–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Monro-Somerville, T.; Sim, M.; Ruddy, J.; Vilas, M.; Gillies, M.A. The Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy on Mortality and Intubation Rate in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 45, e449–e456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Leeies, M.; Flynn, E.; Turgeon, A.F.; Paunovic, B.; Loewen, H.; Rabbani, R.; Abou-Setta, A.M.; Ferguson, N.D.; Zarychanski, R. High-Flow Oxygen via Nasal Cannulae in Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lin, S.; Liu, K.; Lin, Z.; Lin, P. Does High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Improve Outcome in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Respir. Med. 2017, 131, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Azoulay, E.; Lemiale, V.; Mokart, D.; Nseir, S.; Argaud, L.; Pène, F.; Kontar, L.; Bruneel, F.; Klouche, K.; Barbier, F.; et al. Effect of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen versus Standard Oxygen on 28-Day Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: The HIGH Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018, 320, 2099–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ni, Y.-N.; Luo, J.; Yu, H.; Liu, D.; Ni, Z.; Cheng, J.; Liang, B.-M.; Liang, Z.-A. Can High-Flow Nasal Cannula Reduce the Rate of Endotracheal Intubation in Adult Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Chest 2017, 151, 764–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Xia, J.; Zhang, Y.; Ni, L.; Chen, L.; Zhou, C.; Gao, C.; Wu, X.; Duan, J.; Xie, J.; Guo, Q.; et al. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study*. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, e1079–e1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mellado-Artigas, R.; Ferreyro, B.L.; Angriman, F.; Hernández-Sanz, M.; Arruti, E.; Torres, A.; Villar, J.; Brochard, L.; Ferrando, C.; COVID-19 Spanish ICU Network. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Patients with COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Failure. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chandel, A.; Patolia, S.; Brown, A.W.; Collins, A.C.; Sahjwani, D.; Khangoora, V.; Cameron, P.C.; Desai, M.; Kasarabada, A.; Kilcullen, J.K.; et al. High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in COVID-19: Using the ROX Index to Predict Success. Respir. Care 2021, 66, 909–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, L.; Xie, J.; Wu, W.; Chen, H.; Li, S.; He, H.; Yu, Y.; Hu, M.; Li, J.; Zheng, R.; et al. A Simple Nomogram for Predicting Failure of Non-Invasive Respiratory Strategies in Adults with COVID-19: A Retrospective Multicentre Study. Lancet Digit. Health 2021, 3, e166–e174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sayan, İ.; Altınay, M.; Çınar, A.S.; Türk, H.Ş.; Peker, N.; Şahin, K.; Coşkun, N.; Demir, G.D. Impact of HFNC Application on Mortality and Intensive Care Length of Stay in Acute Respiratory Failure Secondary to COVID-19 Pneumonia. Heart Lung 2021, 50, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Delclaux, C.; L’Her, E.; Alberti, C.; Mancebo, J.; Abroug, F.; Conti, G.; Guérin, C.; Schortgen, F.; Lefort, Y.; Antonelli, M.; et al. Treatment of Acute Hypoxemic Nonhypercapnic Respiratory Insufficiency with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Delivered by a Face Mask: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2000, 284, 2352–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Ferrer, M.; Esquinas, A.; Leon, M.; Gonzalez, G.; Alarcon, A.; Torres, A. Noninvasive Ventilation in Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2003, 168, 1438–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Antonelli, M.; Conti, G.; Pelosi, P.; Gregoretti, C.; Pennisi, M.A.; Costa, R.; Severgnini, P.; Chiaranda, M.; Proietti, R. New Treatment of Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Noninvasive Pressure Support Ventilation Delivered by Helmet—A Pilot Controlled Trial. Crit. Care Med. 2002, 30, 602–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Brambilla, A.M.; Aliberti, S.; Prina, E.; Nicoli, F.; Forno, M.; Nava, S.; Ferrari, G.; Corradi, F.; Pelosi, P.; Bignamini, A.; et al. Helmet CPAP versus Oxygen Therapy in Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to Pneumonia. Intensive Care Med. 2014, 40, 942–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhan, Q.; Sun, B.; Liang, L.; Yan, X.; Zhang, L.; Yang, J.; Wang, L.; Ma, Z.; Shi, L.; Wei, L.; et al. Early Use of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Acute Lung Injury: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Crit. Care Med. 2012, 40, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xu, X.P.; Zhang, X.C.; Hu, S.L.; Xu, J.Y.; Xie, J.F.; Liu, S.Q.; Liu, L.; Huang, Y.Z.; Guo, F.M.; Yang, Y.; et al. Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Hypoxemic Nonhypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 45, e727–e733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zayed, Y.; Barbarawi, M.; Kheiri, B.; Haykal, T.; Chahine, A.; Rashdan, L.; Dhillon, H.; Khaneki, S.; Bachuwa, G.; Seedahmed, E. Initial Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Subjects with de Novo Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. Respir. Care 2019, 64, 1433–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Franco, C.; Facciolongo, N.; Tonelli, R.; Dongilli, R.; Vianello, A.; Pisani, L.; Scala, R.; Malerba, M.; Carlucci, A.; Negri, E.A.; et al. Feasibility and Clinical Impact of Out-of-ICU Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19-Related Pneumonia. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 56, 2002130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Karagiannidis, C.; Mostert, C.; Hentschker, C.; Voshaar, T.; Malzahn, J.; Schillinger, G.; Klauber, J.; Janssens, U.; Marx, G.; Weber-Carstens, S.; et al. Case Characteristics, Resource Use, and Outcomes of 10 021 Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to 920 German Hospitals: An Observational Study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, 853–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bertaina, M.; Nuñez-Gil, I.J.; Franchin, L.; Fernández Rozas, I.; Arroyo-Espliguero, R.; Viana-Llamas, M.C.; Romero, R.; Maroun Eid, C.; Uribarri, A.; Becerra-Muñoz, V.M.; et al. Non-Invasive Ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 Acute Respiratory Failure: A Subanalysis from the HOPE COVID-19 Registry. Emerg. Med. J. 2021, 38, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alviset, S.; Riller, Q.; Aboab, J.; Dilworth, K.; Billy, P.-A.; Lombardi, Y.; Azzi, M.; Ferreira Vargas, L.; Laine, L.; Lermuzeaux, M.; et al. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Face-Mask Ventilation Is an Easy and Cheap Option to Manage a Massive Influx of Patients Presenting Acute Respiratory Failure during the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak: A Retrospective Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aliberti, S.; Radovanovic, D.; Billi, F.; Sotgiu, G.; Costanzo, M.; Pilocane, T.; Saderi, L.; Gramegna, A.; Rovellini, A.; Perotto, L.; et al. Helmet CPAP Treatment in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicentre Cohort Study. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 56, 2001935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bellani, G.; Laffey, J.G.; Pham, T.; Madotto, F.; Fan, E.; Brochard, L.; Esteban, A.; Gattinoni, L.; Bumbasirevic, V.; Piquilloud, L.; et al. Noninvasive Ventilation of Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Insights from the LUNG SAFE Study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 195, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Brusasco, C.; Corradi, F.; Di Domenico, A.; Raggi, F.; Timossi, G.; Santori, G.; Brusasco, V.; Galliera CPAP-Covid-19 Study Group; Collaborators of the Galliera CPAP-COVID-19 Study Group. Continuous positive airway pressure in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe respiratory failure. Eur. Respir. J. 2021, 57, 2002524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Oranger, M.; Gonzalez-Bermejo, J.; Dacosta-Noble, P.; Llontop, C.; Guerder, A.; Trosini-Desert, V.; Faure, M.; Raux, M.; Decavele, M.; Demoule, A.; et al. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure to Avoid Intubation in SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: A Two-Period Retrospective Case-Control Study. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 56, 2001692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bellani, G.; Grasselli, G.; Cecconi, M.; Antolini, L.; Borelli, M.; De Giacomi, F.; Bosio, G.; Latronico, N.; Filippini, M.; Gemma, M.; et al. Noninvasive Ventilatory Support of Patients with COVID-19 Outside the Intensive Care Units (WARd-COVID). Ann. ATS 2021, 18, 1020–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ashish, A.; Unsworth, A.; Martindale, J.; Sundar, R.; Kavuri, K.; Sedda, L.; Farrier, M. CPAP Management of COVID-19 Respiratory Failure: A First Quantitative Analysis from an Inpatient Service Evaluation. BMJ Open Respir. Res. 2020, 7, e000692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Coppadoro, A.; Benini, A.; Fruscio, R.; Verga, L.; Mazzola, P.; Bellelli, G.; Carbone, M.; Mulinacci, G.; Soria, A.; Noè, B.; et al. Helmet CPAP to Treat Hypoxic Pneumonia Outside the ICU: An Observational Study during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kofod, L.M.; Nielsen Jeschke, K.; Kristensen, M.T.; Krogh-Madsen, R.; Monefeldt Albek, C.; Hansen, E.F. COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Failure Treated with CPAP. Eur. Clin. Respir. J. 2021, 8, 1910191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Avdeev, S.N.; Yaroshetskiy, A.I.; Tsareva, N.A.; Merzhoeva, Z.M.; Trushenko, N.V.; Nekludova, G.V.; Chikina, S.Y. Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Patients with COVID-19. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 39, 154–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Menzella, F.; Barbieri, C.; Fontana, M.; Scelfo, C.; Castagnetti, C.; Ghidoni, G.; Ruggiero, P.; Livrieri, F.; Piro, R.; Ghidorsi, L.; et al. Effectiveness of Noninvasive Ventilation in COVID-19 Related-Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Clin. Respir. J. 2021, 15, 779–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Paternoster, G.; Sartini, C.; Pennacchio, E.; Lisanti, F.; Landoni, G.; Cabrini, L. Awake Pronation with Helmet Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients Outside the ICU: A Case Series. Med. Intensiva 2020, S0210569120302734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Duca, A.; Memaj, I.; Zanardi, F.; Preti, C.; Alesi, A.; Della Bella, L.; Ghezzi, E.; Di Marco, F.; Lorini, F.L.; Venturelli, S.; et al. Severity of Respiratory Failure and Outcome of Patients Needing a Ventilatory Support in the Emergency Department during Italian Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV2 Outbreak: Preliminary Data on the Role of Helmet CPAP and Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 24, 100419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Grieco, D.L.; Menga, L.S.; Cesarano, M.; Rosà, T.; Spadaro, S.; Bitondo, M.M.; Montomoli, J.; Falò, G.; Tonetti, T.; Cutuli, S.L.; et al. Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation versus High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The HENIVOT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2021, 325, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Noeman-Ahmed, Y.; Gokaraju, S.; Powrie, D.J.; Amran, D.A.; El Sayed, I.; Roshdy, A. Predictors of CPAP Outcome in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients. Respirology 2020, 25, 1316–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Menga, L.S.; Cese, L.D.; Bongiovanni, F.; Lombardi, G.; Michi, T.; Luciani, F.; Cicetti, M.; Timpano, J.; Ferrante, M.C.; Cesarano, M.; et al. High Failure Rate of Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Critically Ill Subjects With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19. Respir. Care 2021, 66, 705–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Demoule, A.; Girou, E.; Richard, J.-C.; Taille, S.; Brochard, L. Benefits and Risks of Success or Failure of Noninvasive Ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32, 1756–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kang, B.J.; Koh, Y.; Lim, C.-M.; Huh, J.W.; Baek, S.; Han, M.; Seo, H.-S.; Suh, H.J.; Seo, G.J.; Kim, E.Y.; et al. Failure of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy May Delay Intubation and Increase Mortality. Intensive Care Med. 2015, 41, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kangelaris, K.N.; Ware, L.B.; Wang, C.Y.; Janz, D.R.; Zhuo, H.; Matthay, M.A.; Calfee, C.S. Timing of Intubation and Clinical Outcomes in Adults With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hernandez-Romieu, A.C.; Adelman, M.W.; Hockstein, M.A.; Robichaux, C.J.; Edwards, J.A.; Fazio, J.C.; Blum, J.M.; Jabaley, C.S.; Caridi-Scheible, M.; Martin, G.S.; et al. Timing of Intubation and Mortality Among Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Single-Center Cohort Study. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, e1045–e1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Carteaux, G.; Millán-Guilarte, T.; De Prost, N.; Razazi, K.; Abid, S.; Thille, A.W.; Schortgen, F.; Brochard, L.; Brun-Buisson, C.; Mekontso Dessap, A. Failure of Noninvasive Ventilation for De Novo Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Role of Tidal Volume*. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Brochard, L.; Slutsky, A.; Pesenti, A. Mechanical Ventilation to Minimize Progression of Lung Injury in Acute Respiratory Failure. Am. J. Respir Crit Care Med. 2017, 195, 438–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mascheroni, D.; Kolobow, T.; Fumagalli, R.; Moretti, M.P.; Chen, V.; Buckhold, D. Acute Respiratory Failure Following Pharmacologically Induced Hyperventilation: An Experimental Animal Study. Intensive Care Med. 1988, 15, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vaporidi, K.; Akoumianaki, E.; Telias, I.; Goligher, E.C.; Brochard, L.; Georgopoulos, D. Respiratory Drive in Critically Ill Patients. Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 201, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Yoshida, T.; Roldan, R.; Beraldo, M.A.; Torsani, V.; Gomes, S.; De Santis, R.R.; Costa, E.L.V.; Tucci, M.R.; Lima, R.G.; Kavanagh, B.P.; et al. Spontaneous Effort During Mechanical Ventilation: Maximal Injury With Less Positive End-Expiratory Pressure. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, e678–e688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yoshida, T.; Torsani, V.; Gomes, S.; De Santis, R.R.; Beraldo, M.A.; Costa, E.L.V.; Tucci, M.R.; Zin, W.A.; Kavanagh, B.P.; Amato, M.B.P. Spontaneous Effort Causes Occult Pendelluft during Mechanical Ventilation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 188, 1420–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Tonelli, R.; Fantini, R.; Tabbì, L.; Castaniere, I.; Pisani, L.; Pellegrino, M.R.; Della Casa, G.; D’Amico, R.; Girardis, M.; Nava, S.; et al. Early Inspiratory Effort Assessment by Esophageal Manometry Predicts Noninvasive Ventilation Outcome in De Novo Respiratory Failure. A Pilot Study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 202, 558–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Frat, J.-P.; Ragot, S.; Coudroy, R.; Constantin, J.-M.; Girault, C.; Prat, G.; Boulain, T.; Demoule, A.; Ricard, J.-D.; Razazi, K.; et al. Predictors of Intubation in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Treated With a Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategy*. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 46, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Goligher, E.C.; Fan, E.; Herridge, M.S.; Murray, A.; Vorona, S.; Brace, D.; Rittayamai, N.; Lanys, A.; Tomlinson, G.; Singh, J.M.; et al. Evolution of Diaphragm Thickness during Mechanical Ventilation. Impact of Inspiratory Effort. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 192, 1080–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Raboud, J.; Shigayeva, A.; McGeer, A.; Bontovics, E.; Chapman, M.; Gravel, D.; Henry, B.; Lapinsky, S.; Loeb, M.; McDonald, L.C.; et al. Risk Factors for SARS Transmission from Patients Requiring Intubation: A Multicentre Investigation in Toronto, Canada. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tran, K.; Cimon, K.; Severn, M.; Pessoa-Silva, C.L.; Conly, J. Aerosol Generating Procedures and Risk of Transmission of Acute Respiratory Infections to Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e35797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Ahn, J.Y.; An, S.; Sohn, Y.; Cho, Y.; Hyun, J.H.; Baek, Y.J.; Kim, M.H.; Jeong, S.J.; Kim, J.H.; Ku, N.S.; et al. Environmental Contamination in the Isolation Rooms of COVID-19 Patients with Severe Pneumonia Requiring Mechanical Ventilation or High-Flow Oxygen Therapy. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 106, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Loh, N.-H.W.; Tan, Y.; Taculod, J.; Gorospe, B.; Teope, A.S.; Somani, J.; Tan, A.Y.H. The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) on Coughing Distance: Implications on Its Use during the Novel Coronavirus Disease Outbreak. Can. J. Anaesth. 2020, 67, 893–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Gaeckle, N.T.; Lee, J.; Park, Y.; Kreykes, G.; Evans, M.D.; Hogan, C.J. Aerosol Generation from the Respiratory Tract with Various Modes of Oxygen Delivery. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 202, 1115–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Iwashyna, T.J.; Boehman, A.; Capecelatro, J.; Cohn, A.M.; Cooke, J.M.; Costa, D.K.; Eakin, R.M.; Prescott, H.C.; Woolridge, M.S. Variation in Aerosol Production Across Oxygen Delivery Devices in Spontaneously Breathing Human Subjects. medRxiv 2020, 20066688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Li, J.; Fink, J.B.; Elshafei, A.A.; Stewart, L.M.; Barbian, H.J.; Mirza, S.H.; Al-Harthi, L.; Vines, D.; Ehrmann, S. Placing a Mask on COVID-19 Patients during High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy Reduces Aerosol Particle Dispersion. ERJ Open Res. 2021, 7, 00519–02020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Leung, C.C.H.; Joynt, G.M.; Gomersall, C.D.; Wong, W.T.; Lee, A.; Ling, L.; Chan, P.K.S.; Lui, P.C.W.; Tsoi, P.C.Y.; Ling, C.M.; et al. Comparison of High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Oxygen Face Mask for Environmental Bacterial Contamination in Critically Ill Pneumonia Patients: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial. J. Hosp. Infect. 2019, 101, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Miller, D.C.; Beamer, P.; Billheimer, D.; Subbian, V.; Sorooshian, A.; Campbell, B.S.; Mosier, J.M. Aerosol Risk with Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19. J. Am. Coll Emerg Physicians Open 2020, 1, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Roberts, S.; Kabaliuk, N.; Spence, C.; O’Donnell, J.; Zulkhairi Abidin, Z.; Dougherty, R.; Roberts, S.; Jiang, Y.; Jermy, M. Nasal High-Flow Therapy and Dispersion of Nasal Aerosols in an Experimental Setting. J. Crit. Care 2015, 30, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kotoda, M.; Hishiyama, S.; Mitsui, K.; Tanikawa, T.; Morikawa, S.; Takamino, A.; Matsukawa, T. Assessment of the Potential for Pathogen Dispersal during High-Flow Nasal Therapy. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 104, 534–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Guy, T.; Créac’hcadec, A.; Ricordel, C.; Salé, A.; Arnouat, B.; Bizec, J.-L.; Langelot, M.; Lineau, C.; Marquette, D.; Martin, F.; et al. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen: A Safe, Efficient Treatment for COVID-19 Patients Not in an ICU. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 56, 2001154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rello, J.; Pérez, M.; Roca, O.; Poulakou, G.; Souto, J.; Laborda, C.; Balcells, J.; Serra, J.; Masclans, J.R.; CRIPS Investigators. High-Flow Nasal Therapy in Adults with Severe Acute Respiratory Infection: A Cohort Study in Patients with 2009 Influenza A/H1N1v. J. Crit. Care 2012, 27, 434–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Westafer, L.M.; Soares, W.E.; Salvador, D.; Medarametla, V.; Schoenfeld, E.M. No Evidence of Increasing COVID-19 in Health Care Workers after Implementation of High Flow Nasal Cannula: A Safety Evaluation. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 39, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hui, D.S.; Chow, B.K.; Lo, T.; Tsang, O.T.Y.; Ko, F.W.; Ng, S.S.; Gin, T.; Chan, M.T.V. Exhaled Air Dispersion during High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy versus CPAP via Different Masks. Eur. Respir. J. 2019, 53, 1802339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Leonard, S.; Atwood, C.W.; Walsh, B.K.; DeBellis, R.J.; Dungan, G.C.; Strasser, W.; Whittle, J.S. Preliminary Findings on Control of Dispersion of Aerosols and Droplets During High-Velocity Nasal Insufflation Therapy Using a Simple Surgical Mask: Implications for the High-Flow Nasal Cannula. Chest 2020, 158, 1046–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hamada, S.; Tanabe, N.; Inoue, H.; Hirai, T. Wearing of Medical Mask over the High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Safer Oxygen Therapy in the COVID-19 Era. Pulmonology 2021, 27, 171–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ischaki, E.; Pantazopoulos, I. “Blow with the High Flow” an Updated Algorithm. J. Emerg. Crit. Care Med. 2019, 3, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nasa, P.; Azoulay, E.; Khanna, A.K.; Jain, R.; Gupta, S.; Javeri, Y.; Juneja, D.; Rangappa, P.; Sundararajan, K.; Alhazzani, W.; et al. Expert Consensus Statements for the Management of COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Failure Using a Delphi Method. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mauri, T.; Galazzi, A.; Binda, F.; Masciopinto, L.; Corcione, N.; Carlesso, E.; Lazzeri, M.; Spinelli, E.; Tubiolo, D.; Volta, C.A.; et al. Impact of Flow and Temperature on Patient Comfort during Respiratory Support by High-Flow Nasal Cannula. Crit. Care 2018, 22, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Sztrymf, B.; Messika, J.; Bertrand, F.; Hurel, D.; Leon, R.; Dreyfuss, D.; Ricard, J.-D. Beneficial Effects of Humidified High Flow Nasal Oxygen in Critical Care Patients: A Prospective Pilot Study. Intensive Care Med. 2011, 37, 1780–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kim, W.-Y.; Sung, H.; Hong, S.-B.; Lim, C.-M.; Koh, Y.; Huh, J.W. Predictors of High Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in Immunocompromised Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure Due to Non-HIV Pneumocystis Pneumonia. J. Thorac. Dis. 2017, 9, 3013–3022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Akoumianaki, E.; Vaporidi, K.; Georgopoulos, D. The Injurious Effects of Elevated or Nonelevated Respiratory Rate during Mechanical Ventilation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2019, 199, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Tobin, M.J.; Laghi, F.; Jubran, A. Why COVID-19 Silent Hypoxemia Is Baffling to Physicians. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 202, 356–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Gattinoni, L.; Chiumello, D.; Caironi, P.; Busana, M.; Romitti, F.; Brazzi, L.; Camporota, L. COVID-19 Pneumonia: Different Respiratory Treatments for Different Phenotypes? Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1099–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Corne, S.; Webster, K.; Younes, M. Hypoxic Respiratory Response during Acute Stable Hypocapnia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2003, 167, 1193–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Roca, O.; Caralt, B.; Messika, J.; Samper, M.; Sztrymf, B.; Hernández, G.; García-de-Acilu, M.; Frat, J.-P.; Masclans, J.R.; Ricard, J.-D. An Index Combining Respiratory Rate and Oxygenation to Predict Outcome of Nasal High-Flow Therapy. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2019, 199, 1368–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zucman, N.; Mullaert, J.; Roux, D.; Roca, O.; Ricard, J.-D. Prediction of Outcome of Nasal High Flow Use during COVID-19-Related Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1924–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Luo, J.; Wang, M.; Zhu, H.; Liang, B.; Liu, D.; Peng, X.; Wang, R.; Li, C.; He, C.; Liang, Z. Can Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation Prevent Endotracheal Intubation in Acute Lung Injury/Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome? A Meta-Analysis. Respirology 2014, 19, 1149–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Pfeifer, M.; Ewig, S.; Voshaar, T.; Randerath, W.J.; Bauer, T.; Geiseler, J.; Dellweg, D.; Westhoff, M.; Windisch, W.; Schönhofer, B.; et al. Position Paper for the State-of-the-Art Application of Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19. Respiration 2020, 99, 521–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Vitacca, M.; Nava, S.; Santus, P.; Harari, S. Early Consensus Management for Non-ICU Acute Respiratory Failure SARS-CoV-2 Emergency in Italy: From Ward to Trenches. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 55, 2000632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Patel, B.K.; Wolfe, K.S.; Pohlman, A.S.; Hall, J.B.; Kress, J.P. Effect of Noninvasive Ventilation Delivered by Helmet versus Face Mask on the Rate of Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2016, 315, 2435–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Esquinas Rodriguez, A.M.; Papadakos, P.J.; Carron, M.; Cosentini, R.; Chiumello, D. Clinical Review: Helmet and Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients. Crit. Care 2013, 17, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Vargas, F.; Thille, A.; Lyazidi, A.; Campo, F.R.; Brochard, L. Helmet with Specific Settings versus Facemask for Noninvasive Ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2009, 37, 1921–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Carrillo, A.; Lopez, A.; Carrillo, L.; Caldeira, V.; Guia, M.; Alonso, N.; Renedo, A.; Quintana, M.E.; Sanchez, J.M.; Esquinas, A. Validity of a Clinical Scale in Predicting the Failure of Non-Invasive Ventilation in Hypoxemic Patients. J. Crit. Care 2020, 60, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Duan, J.; Han, X.; Bai, L.; Zhou, L.; Huang, S. Assessment of Heart Rate, Acidosis, Consciousness, Oxygenation, and Respiratory Rate to Predict Noninvasive Ventilation Failure in Hypoxemic Patients. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 43, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Alhazzani, W.; Møller, M.H.; Arabi, Y.M.; Loeb, M.; Gong, M.N.; Fan, E.; Oczkowski, S.; Levy, M.M.; Derde, L.; Dzierba, A.; et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 854–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Chalmers, J.D.; Crichton, M.L.; Goeminne, P.C.; Cao, B.; Humbert, M.; Shteinberg, M.; Antoniou, K.M.; Ulrik, C.S.; Parks, H.; Wang, C.; et al. Management of Hospitalised Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A European Respiratory Society Living Guideline. Eur. Respir. J. 2021, 57, 2100048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Maitra, S.; Som, A.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Arora, M.K.; Baidya, D.K. Comparison of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy with Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Noninvasive Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. J. Crit. Care 2016, 35, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Perkins, G.D.; Couper, K.; Connolly, B.; Baillie, J.K.; Bradley, J.M.; Dark, P.; De Soyza, A.; Gorman, E.; Gray, A.; Hamilton, L.; et al. RECOVERY- Respiratory Support: Respiratory Strategies for Patients with Suspected or Proven COVID-19 Respiratory Failure; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen, and Standard Care: A Structured Summary of a Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial. Trials 2020, 21, 687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Gattinoni, L.; Busana, M.; Giosa, L.; Macrì, M.; Quintel, M. Prone Positioning in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Semin Respir Crit. Care Med. 2019, 40, 094–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Guérin, C.; Reignier, J.; Richard, J.-C.; Beuret, P.; Gacouin, A.; Boulain, T.; Mercier, E.; Badet, M.; Mercat, A.; Baudin, O.; et al. Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 2159–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lee, J.M.; Bae, W.; Lee, Y.J.; Cho, Y.-J. The Efficacy and Safety of Prone Positional Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Updated Study-Level Meta-Analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials*. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 42, 1252–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Munshi, L.; Del Sorbo, L.; Adhikari, N.K.J.; Hodgson, C.L.; Wunsch, H.; Meade, M.O.; Uleryk, E.; Mancebo, J.; Pesenti, A.; Ranieri, V.M.; et al. Prone Position for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann. Am. Thorac Soc. 2017, 14, S280–S288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Scaravilli, V.; Grasselli, G.; Castagna, L.; Zanella, A.; Isgrò, S.; Lucchini, A.; Patroniti, N.; Bellani, G.; Pesenti, A. Prone Positioning Improves Oxygenation in Spontaneously Breathing Nonintubated Patients with Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Study. J. Crit. Care 2015, 30, 1390–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Ding, L.; Wang, L.; Ma, W.; He, H. Efficacy and Safety of Early Prone Positioning Combined with HFNC or NIV in Moderate to Severe ARDS: A Multi-Center Prospective Cohort Study. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Coppo, A.; Bellani, G.; Winterton, D.; Di Pierro, M.; Soria, A.; Faverio, P.; Cairo, M.; Mori, S.; Messinesi, G.; Contro, E.; et al. Feasibility and Physiological Effects of Prone Positioning in Non-Intubated Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19 (PRON-COVID): A Prospective Cohort Study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Carrillo Hernandez-Rubio, J.; Sanchez-Carpintero Abad, M.; Yordi Leon, A.; Doblare Higuera, G.; Garcia Rodriguez, L.; Garcia Torrejon, C.; Mayor Cacho, A.; Jimenez Rodriguez, A.; Garcia-Salmones Martin, M. Outcomes of an Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit in the COVID-19 Pandemic. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Cherian, S.V.; Li, C.; Roche, B.; Reyes, S.A.; Karanth, S.; Lal, A.P.; Aisenberg, G.M.; Estrada-Y-Martin, R.M. Predictive Factors for Success of Awake Proning in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Secondary to COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Respir. Med. 2021, 181, 106379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Elharrar, X.; Trigui, Y.; Dols, A.-M.; Touchon, F.; Martinez, S.; Prud’homme, E.; Papazian, L. Use of Prone Positioning in Nonintubated Patients With COVID-19 and Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure. JAMA 2020, 323, 2336–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ferrando, C.; Mellado-Artigas, R.; Gea, A.; Arruti, E.; Aldecoa, C.; Adalia, R.; Ramasco, F.; Monedero, P.; Maseda, E.; Tamayo, G.; et al. Awake Prone Positioning Does Not Reduce the Risk of Intubation in COVID-19 Treated with High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy: A Multicenter, Adjusted Cohort Study. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hallifax, R.J.; Porter, B.M.; Elder, P.J.; Evans, S.B.; Turnbull, C.D.; Hynes, G.; Lardner, R.; Archer, K.; Bettinson, H.V.; Nickol, A.H.; et al. Successful Awake Proning Is Associated with Improved Clinical Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19: Single-Centre High-Dependency Unit Experience. BMJ Open Respir. Res. 2020, 7, e000678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Jagan, N.; Morrow, L.E.; Walters, R.W.; Klein, L.P.; Wallen, T.J.; Chung, J.; Plambeck, R.W. The POSITIONED Study: Prone Positioning in Nonventilated Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients-A Retrospective Analysis. Crit. Care Explor. 2020, 2, e0229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Nauka, P.C.; Chekuri, S.; Aboodi, M.; Hope, A.A.; Gong, M.N.; Chen, J.-T. A Case-Control Study of Prone Positioning in Awake and Nonintubated Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients. Crit. Care Explor. 2021, 3, e0348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Padrão, E.M.H.; Valente, F.S.; Besen, B.A.M.P.; Rahhal, H.; Mesquita, P.S.; de Alencar, J.C.G.; da Costa, M.G.P.; Wanderley, A.P.B.; Emerenciano, D.L.; Bortoleto, F.M.; et al. Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Exploratory Findings in a Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2020, 27, 1249–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Sartini, C.; Tresoldi, M.; Scarpellini, P.; Tettamanti, A.; Carcò, F.; Landoni, G.; Zangrillo, A. Respiratory Parameters in Patients With COVID-19 After Using Noninvasive Ventilation in the Prone Position Outside the Intensive Care Unit. JAMA 2020, 323, 2338–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Tonelli, R.; Pisani, L.; Tabbì, L.; Comellini, V.; Prediletto, I.; Fantini, R.; Marchioni, A.; Andrisani, D.; Gozzi, F.; Bruzzi, G.; et al. Early Awake Proning in Critical and Severe COVID-19 Patients Undergoing Noninvasive Respiratory Support: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study. Pulmonology 2021, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Xu, Q.; Wang, T.; Qin, X.; Jie, Y.; Zha, L.; Lu, W. Early Awake Prone Position Combined with High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy in Severe COVID-19: A Case Series. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Thompson, A.E.; Ranard, B.L.; Wei, Y.; Jelic, S. Prone Positioning in Awake, Nonintubated Patients With COVID-19 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. JAMA Intern. Med. 2020, 180, 1537–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Jayakumar, D.; Ramachandran Dnb, P.; Rabindrarajan Dnb, E.; Vijayaraghavan Md, B.K.T.; Ramakrishnan Ab, N.; Venkataraman Ab, R. Standard Care Versus Awake Prone Position in Adult Nonintubated Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Secondary to COVID-19 Infection-A Multicenter Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Intensive Care Med. 2021, 8850666211014480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Weatherald, J.; Solverson, K.; Zuege, D.J.; Loroff, N.; Fiest, K.M.; Parhar, K.K.S. Awake Prone Positioning for COVID-19 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Rapid Review. J. Crit. Care 2021, 61, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cardona, S.; Downing, J.; Alfalasi, R.; Bzhilyanskaya, V.; Milzman, D.; Rehan, M.; Schwartz, B.; Yardi, I.; Yazdanpanah, F.; Tran, Q.K. Intubation Rate of Patients with Hypoxia Due to COVID-19 Treated with Awake Proning: A Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2021, 43, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Pb, S.; Mittal, S.; Madan, K.; Mohan, A.; Tiwari, P.; Hadda, V.; Pandey, R.M.; Guleria, R. Awake Prone Positioning in Non-Intubated Patients for the Management of Hypoxemia in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Monaldi Arch. Chest Dis. 2021, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Rosén, J.; von Oelreich, E.; Fors, D.; Jonsson Fagerlund, M.; Taxbro, K.; Skorup, P.; Eby, L.; Campoccia Jalde, F.; Johansson, N.; Bergström, G.; et al. Awake Prone Positioning in Patients with Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The PROFLO Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Johnson, S.A.; Horton, D.J.; Fuller, M.J.; Yee, J.; Aliyev, N.; Boltax, J.P.; Chambers, J.H.; Lanspa, M.J. Patient-Directed Prone Positioning in Awake Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Hospitalization (PAPR). Ann. Am. Thorac Soc. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Taboada, M.; Baluja, A.; Santos, L.D.; González, I.; Veiras, S.; Caruezo, V.; Naveira, A.; Mirón, P.; Novoa, C.; Doldán, P.; et al. Effectiveness of Dexmedetomidine Combined with High Flow Nasal Oxygen and Long Periods of Awake Prone Positioning in Moderate or Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia. J. Clin. Anesth. 2021, 72, 110261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jpm 11 00884 g001 550
Figure 1. Recommended algorithm for noninvasive respiratory support in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Patients with PaCO2 > 45 mmHg are excluded. # Criteria for immediate or imminent intubation are impaired consciousness, persistent shock (which is defined by systolic arterial blood pressure < 90 mmHg despite adequate fluid administration), hypercapnia/acidosis and deteriorating respiratory distress. ® The choice between HFNO and NIV depends on device availability and familiarity. In case that both are available, HFNO is proposed as a first choice because of better patient tolerance and ease of use. & BiPAP could be a choice in case of respiratory distress. BiPAP initial pressure settings could be different, depending on the interface used, i.e., with helmet pressures it should be increased by 50%. * Respiratory distress is detected by the presence of persistent auxiliary muscle use and/or thoraco-abdominal asynchrony. £ The rationale of change in HFNO settings is the following: (a) increase in flow rate is expected to decrease the respiratory muscle workload with concomitant decrease in the respiratory rate, dyspnoea, auxiliary muscle use and thoraco-abdominal asynchrony; (b) increase in FiO2 causes increase in PaO2 and SpO2; (c) temperature can be set at 37 °C or lower (31–34 °C) based on the patient’s comfort. ¥ Hemodynamic instability is defined by a heart rate >140 beats/min or change >20% from baseline and/or systolic arterial blood pressure > 180 mmHg, <90 mmHg or decrease >40 mmHg from the baseline. @ In case of HFNO failure, a short trial of NIV could be considered in the ICU/HDU area. ∞ BiPAP use should be as much as possible, ideally continuous. + If the patient’s clinical status and arterial blood gases are progressively improved, we proceed to weaning. BiPAP: Bilevel positive airway pressure; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; FiO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; HACOR score: Heart rate–pH–Glasgow Coma Scale–PaO2/FiO2–respiratory rate; HFNO: High-Flow Nasal Oxygen; MV: Mechanical Ventilation; PaO2: arterial partial pressure of oxygen; PaCO2: arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide; PBW: predicted body weight; RR: respiratory rate; ROX index:ratio of SpO2/FiO2 to the respiratory rate; SpO2: pulse oximetry of oxygen; SOT: standard oxygen treatment.
Figure 1. Recommended algorithm for noninvasive respiratory support in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Patients with PaCO2 > 45 mmHg are excluded. # Criteria for immediate or imminent intubation are impaired consciousness, persistent shock (which is defined by systolic arterial blood pressure < 90 mmHg despite adequate fluid administration), hypercapnia/acidosis and deteriorating respiratory distress. ® The choice between HFNO and NIV depends on device availability and familiarity. In case that both are available, HFNO is proposed as a first choice because of better patient tolerance and ease of use. & BiPAP could be a choice in case of respiratory distress. BiPAP initial pressure settings could be different, depending on the interface used, i.e., with helmet pressures it should be increased by 50%. * Respiratory distress is detected by the presence of persistent auxiliary muscle use and/or thoraco-abdominal asynchrony. £ The rationale of change in HFNO settings is the following: (a) increase in flow rate is expected to decrease the respiratory muscle workload with concomitant decrease in the respiratory rate, dyspnoea, auxiliary muscle use and thoraco-abdominal asynchrony; (b) increase in FiO2 causes increase in PaO2 and SpO2; (c) temperature can be set at 37 °C or lower (31–34 °C) based on the patient’s comfort. ¥ Hemodynamic instability is defined by a heart rate >140 beats/min or change >20% from baseline and/or systolic arterial blood pressure > 180 mmHg, <90 mmHg or decrease >40 mmHg from the baseline. @ In case of HFNO failure, a short trial of NIV could be considered in the ICU/HDU area. ∞ BiPAP use should be as much as possible, ideally continuous. + If the patient’s clinical status and arterial blood gases are progressively improved, we proceed to weaning. BiPAP: Bilevel positive airway pressure; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; FiO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; HACOR score: Heart rate–pH–Glasgow Coma Scale–PaO2/FiO2–respiratory rate; HFNO: High-Flow Nasal Oxygen; MV: Mechanical Ventilation; PaO2: arterial partial pressure of oxygen; PaCO2: arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide; PBW: predicted body weight; RR: respiratory rate; ROX index:ratio of SpO2/FiO2 to the respiratory rate; SpO2: pulse oximetry of oxygen; SOT: standard oxygen treatment.
Jpm 11 00884 g001
Table
Table 1. Evidence for the use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Table 1. Evidence for the use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemic respiratory failure.
StudyDesignNoHFNO RateHFNO FailureMortality if HFNO FailsOther Outcomes
Wang, 2020 [8]Retrospective MC2763%41%NAThe HFNO failure rate was 0% in patients with PaO2/FiO2 > 200 mm Hg.
Patel, 2020 [9]Retrospective SC44523.3%35.6%34.4%-
Demoule, 2020 [11]Retrospective MC37939%56%25%In a propensity scored analysis, HFNO was associated with a reduced proportion of IMV compared with no HFNO.
Xu, 2020 [12]Retrospective MC4582.2%51%NA-
Yang, 2020 [13]Retrospective SC5263.5%NANA-
Bhatraju, 2020 [14]Retrospective MC2442%NANA-
Xia, 2020 [27]Retrospective MC29014.8%46.5%65%Male sex and hypoxemia severity at admission were independent predictors of HFNO failure
Bonnet, 2021 [10]Retrospective MC13855%51%16%HFNO was compared with SOT using weighted propensity score. HFNO was associated with a lower rate of IMV. No difference in ICU LOS and mortality.
Mellado-Artigas, 2021 [28]Prospective MC46841%38%26%Propensity matched cohort of 122 pts showed that compared to early IMV, HFNO increased ventilator free days and reduced ICU LOS.
Chandel, 2021 [29]Retrospective MC272100%39.7%45.4%ROX >3.0 at 2, 6, and 12 h after HFNO was 85.3% sensitive for HFNO success. No outcomes difference between early or late (>48 h) intubation.
Liu, 2021 [30]Retrospective MC65256%56%49%A normogram that predicted NIRS failure on Day 1 was developed. Patients in whom NIRS fails have a high risk of death might benefit from early triage and close monitoring.
Sayan, 2021 [31]Retrospective MC4355.8%54.2%92%Compared to patients receiving SOT, those managed with HFNO had lower intubation rate (54.2% vs. 84.2%) and lower mortality (50% vs. 84.2%)
HFNO failure refers to escalation to noninvasive mechanical ventilation or endotracheal intubation. No = number of patients included; HFNO = High-Flow Nasal Oxygen; MC = multicenter trial; SC = single center; SOT = standard oxygen therapy; IMV = invasive mechanical ventilation; LOS = length of stay; NIRS = noninvasive respiratory strategies.
Table
Table 2. Evidence for the use of NIV (CPAP or BiPAP) in patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Table 2. Evidence for the use of NIV (CPAP or BiPAP) in patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemic respiratory failure.
StudyDesignNoModeNIV RateDeath under NIVNIV Failure Mortality if NIV FailsOther Outcomes
Franco, 2020 [39]Retrospective MC670CPAP BiPAP49%
26%		22%
25%		25%
28%		32%
18%		Mortality rates using HFNO, CPAP and NIV were not significantly different, after adjusting for potential confounders
Karagiannidis, 2020 [40]Retrospective MC10,021NA3%45%49%50%NIV failure is related with mortality as high as invasive mechanical ventilation
Bertaina, 2021 [41]Retrospective MC1933NA20%33.8%15.9%58.1%Older age, hypertension, room air SatO2 < 92% at presentation, lymphocytopenia, and the need for antibiotic therapy during admission were independently associated with in-hospital death or intubation
Oranger, 2020 [46]Retrospective SC52CPAP73%0%24%NA-
Alviset, 2020 [42]Retrospective SC49CPAP80%0%62%50%-
Brusasco, 2021 [45]Retrospective SC64CPAP100%6%11%71%Neither PaO2/FIO2 nor lung weight were predictors of CPAP failure. CPAP avoided death or intubation in 36 out of 53 patients with PaO2/FIO2 < 150 and/or lung weight > 1.5 kg
Aliberti, 2020 [43]Prospective MC157CPAP100%22.9%21.7%26.5%-
Bellani, 2021 [47]Prospective MC909CPAP BiPAP85%
15%		22.2%15.4%NA10% of COVID-19 patients were treated with NIV outside the ICUs and the overall rate of success of was 65%.
Ashish, 2020 [48]Retrospective SC206CPAP8.7%50%NANA-
Coppadoro, 2021 [49]Retrospective MC306CPAP100%30.4%17.6%40.7%Helmet CPAP treatment is feasible for several days outside ICU
Kofod, 2021 [50]Retrospective SC53CPAP83%43%29%54%-
Avdeev, 2021 [51]Retrospective MC61CPAP BiPAP73.8% 26.2%0%27.9%88.2%NIV is feasible in patients with COVID-19 outside the ICU
Menzella, 2021 [52]Retrospective SC79BiPAP100%25.3%26.6%43%-
Paternoster, 2020 [53]Retrospective SC11CPAP100%0%27%67%-
Duca, 2020 [54]Retrospective SC85CPAP BiPAP83.5%
8.2%		54.9%
57.1%		36.6%
0%		57.7%
-		-
Grieco, 2021 [55]Prospective MC RCT109BiPAP49.5%NA30%NATreatment with helmet NIV compared with HFNO resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days, among patient with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia.
Noeman-Ahmed, 2020 [56]Retrospective SC52CPAP100%19.2%40.4%38%-
NIV failure refers to escalation to endotracheal intubation. No = number of patients included; NIV = Noninvasive Ventilation; CPAP = Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; BiPAP = Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure; HFNO = High-Flow Nasal Oxygen; MC = multicenter trial; SC = single center; ICU = Intensive Care Unit; RCT = Randomized Control Trial.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akoumianaki, E.; Ischaki, E.; Karagiannis, K.; Sigala, I.; Zakyn-thinos, S. The Role of Noninvasive Respiratory Management in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 884. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11090884

AMA Style

Akoumianaki E, Ischaki E, Karagiannis K, Sigala I, Zakyn-thinos S. The Role of Noninvasive Respiratory Management in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2021; 11(9):884. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11090884

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akoumianaki, Evangelia, Eleni Ischaki, Konstantinos Karagiannis, Ioanna Sigala, and Spyros Zakyn-thinos. 2021. "The Role of Noninvasive Respiratory Management in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia" Journal of Personalized Medicine 11, no. 9: 884. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11090884

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop