Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Lessons from COVID-19 in the management of acute respiratory failure

Claudia Crimi, Patrick Murphy, Maxime Patout, Javier Sayas, Joao Carlos Winck
Breathe 2023 19: 230035; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0035-2023
Claudia Crimi
1Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
2Respiratory Medicine Unit, Policlinico “G. Rodolico-San Marco” University Hospital, Catania, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claudia Crimi
Patrick Murphy
3Lane Fox Respiratory Service, Guy's and St Thomas’ Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
4Centre for Human and Applied Physiological Sciences (CHAPS), King's College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Patrick Murphy
Maxime Patout
5Service des Pathologies du Sommeil (Département R3S), Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire APHP-Sorbonne Université, Site Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France
6UMRS1158 Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et Clinique, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Maxime Patout
Javier Sayas
7Pulmonology Service, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
8Facultad de Medicina Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joao Carlos Winck
9Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
10Centro De Reabilitação Do Norte, Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova De Gaia, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Joao Carlos Winck
  • For correspondence: jcwinck@mail.telepac.pt
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Accumulated evidence supports the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support therapies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, alleviating admissions to intensive care units. Noninvasive respiratory support strategies, including high-flow oxygen therapy, continuous positive airway pressure via mask or helmet and noninvasive ventilation, can be alternatives that may avoid the need for invasive ventilation. Alternating different noninvasive respiratory support therapies and introducing complementary interventions, like self-proning, may improve outcomes. Proper monitoring is warranted to ensure the efficacy of the techniques and to avoid complications while supporting transfer to the intensive care unit. This article reviews the latest evidence on noninvasive respiratory support therapies in COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Abstract

In COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, noninvasive respiratory support therapies have been shown to reduce the risk of intubation and they should be considered safe and adequate, in the proper setting and with experienced teams https://bit.ly/3GQbgKs

Introduction

In the first phases of the pandemic, due to the fears of rapidly progressive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and putative nosocomial infection risks, there was a trend for advising early intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) instead of noninvasive respiratory support therapies [1]. Subsequent prospective cohort studies confirmed that noninvasive respiratory support therapies improved outcomes compared with early IMV [2, 3] and that noninvasive respiratory support therapies were not “generating” but rather “dispersing” bioaerosols farther away from the patient [4]. However, in patients not responding to noninvasive respiratory strategies, early intubation and a switch to IMV were highly recommended [5].

The use of noninvasive respiratory support therapies has evolved over time during the pandemic. In the beginning, the scarcity of noninvasive respiratory support devices prompted the repurposing of existing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) machines [6–8]. Noninvasive respiratory support therapies became the first-line intervention for COVID-19-associated AHRF as experience was gained about its efficacy and safety [9] and manufacturers increased production [10]. Furthermore, noninvasive respiratory support therapies outcomes and management have changed over time depending on pandemic waves [11], COVID-19 vaccination coverage [12], circulating viral variants [13], and published evidence [14, 15].

Description of noninvasive respiratory support therapies

AHRF is the result of a range of pathophysiological processes and patients with this condition will require respiratory support while the underlying pathology is treated. It has been increasingly recognised that different therapeutic strategies to provide oxygenation and to offload the work of breathing in AHRF impact on clinical outcomes [16]. The term “noninvasive respiratory support therapies” is increasingly used to describe medical interventions providing oxygenation and/or ventilation to patients with AHRF that represent a higher level of support than conventional oxygen therapy (COT) alone but fall short of IMV. Noninvasive respiratory support therapies encompass several discrete therapies, principally CPAP, NIV and high-flow oxygen therapy (HFT). Both CPAP and NIV have been used in the management of acute respiratory failure to provide respiratory support without the need for IMV and its associated morbidity, with HFT being introduced as an alternative method in recent years, and adoption of these strategies has been accelerated by the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

CPAP provides a single continuous positive airway pressure that improves oxygenation by increasing functional residual capacity, recruiting poorly ventilated lung regions, and therefore improves the operating lung volume and the ventilation/perfusion matching. As there is a single level of pressure, CPAP does not require synchronisation with the patient and so it is simpler to set-up and deliver than NIV. NIV provides a higher level of pressure delivered during the inspiratory phase (inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) or pressure support (PS)) and a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), showing the same physiological benefits as IMV, reducing muscle loading and work of breathing and improving gas exchange [17]. NIV requires a degree of synchronisation between the ventilator and patient, and therefore, requires more skill for set-up and effective delivery than CPAP. CPAP and NIV may be delivered via the same devices used for IMV, but there are also a range of dedicated noninvasive ventilator devices which offer potential advantages. The terminology to describe the modes and settings of devices are not standardised and so familiarity with the models in question is important. They can both be delivered via single-limb or dual-limb circuits, but whichever system is used, it is important to realise that the use of a noninvasive interface will lead to unintentional leaks, which can impact ventilator performance and patient–ventilator synchrony. The latter needs to be appreciated as it is associated with negative physiological and clinical consequences. CPAP and NIV are commonly delivered via a range of oronasal masks but also using other interfaces, including the helmet (figure 1), with the latter allowing for the delivery of higher PEEP and minimal leaks [18].

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Noninvasive respiratory support therapies for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. HFT: high-flow oxygen therapy; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; NIV: noninvasive ventilation; FIO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; PEEP: positive end-expiratory pressure; RR: respiratory rate; ICU: intensive care unit; PS: pressure support ventilation; IPAP: inspiratory positive airway pressure; EPAP: expiratory positive airway pressure.

HFT delivers warmed and humidified air at flow rates above that of COT, usually between 15 and 60 L·min−1, thus matching patients' inspiratory peak flow, even in patients with high demand. Therefore, HFT provides accurate delivery of the set fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2), limiting the dilution of the inhaled oxygen with room air and including humidification to prevent airway drying and facilitate mucociliary clearance. Moreover, HFT provides a washout of airway dead space, a flow-dependent reduction in inspiratory effort as well as a PEEP effect proportional to the flow rates while ensuring patient comfort [19]. Due to this strong physiological rationale, HFT has been suggested as an alternative to NIV in patients with AHRF [20].

Noninvasive respiratory support therapies in AHRF: evidence before the COVID-19 pandemic

Most studies in critical care combine both CPAP and NIV, with the addition of pressure support being optional and titrated to work of breathing. NIV has become the gold standard in the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients with COPD [21] and is used in clinical practice beyond this indication in obesity and neuromuscular disease [22]. However, the use of NIV and CPAP in AHRF is more controversial, with potential harm in patients with the most severe lung injury (arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/FIO2<150 mmHg) [23] and a variance in efficacy based on the underlying pathophysiological process. Indeed, the physiological effects of CPAP and NIV are different and the choice between these two modalities might affect the clinical outcome. Although few comparative studies between CPAP and NIV are available, both techniques improve oxygenation; however, physiological studies showed that CPAP has minimal effects on respiratory effort, while NIV (with the combination of pressure support and PEEP) unloads the respiratory muscles reducing inspiratory oesophageal pressure swings and improves dyspnoea relief [24, 25]. Therefore, CPAP could be preferred if the effort is low and NIV if the effort is high. Thus, CPAP and NIV are recommended in specific subgroups of patients with their use in patients with de novo acute respiratory failure limited to patients with less severe disease and in an appropriate clinical context that allows access to rapid escalation and a switch to IMV if needed. Specific groups with AHRF that may benefit from CPAP and/or NIV include acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, post-surgical and immunocompromised patients [26, 27].

The data to support HFT being used in isolation or as an alternative to NIV have been increasing over the past decade and have now been incorporated into formal clinical practice guidelines [20]. HFT offers a simpler interface and requires less technical skill than NIV and this is demonstrated by the higher duration of this treatment delivered to patients during clinical trials [28]. The evidence to support HFT as the noninvasive respiratory support therapy of choice in patients with de novo acute respiratory failure is equivocal, but there is clear evidence of efficacy, with a reduction in mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay compared with COT [29, 30]. However, the level of certainty of superiority of HFT over NIV is low due to the heterogeneity of the patient populations in clinical trials and the deviations from current best practice, in particular, the limited duration of NIV delivered in some of the intervention periods [20, 31]. However, guidelines suggest the use of HFT as a first-line treatment for de novo respiratory failure because of the possible harmful effects of facemask NIV.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was increasing evidence supporting noninvasive respiratory support therapies to manage patients with AHRF, with the use of HFT in particular expanding due to clinical benefits and ease of application. The choice of noninvasive respiratory support therapies should be carefully considered, with underlying patient characteristics (e.g. premorbid respiratory disease), the pathophysiological driver of AHRF and the skill mix of the clinical team all being important aspects of the decision-making.

Noninvasive respiratory support therapies: an aerosol-generating procedure?

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was the first pandemic to hit the world rapidly with healthcare professionals knowing so little about the infective agent. After the identification of the virus, it became a priority to understand how SARS-CoV-2 disseminated. As for all respiratory diseases, viral aerosol transmission was rapidly identified as the main source of contamination [32].

During the first phase of the pandemic, given the high rate of infections amongst healthcare professionals, extensive precautionary measures were taken [9]. Hence, all procedures at risk of generating aerosols were to be performed with extensive personal protective equipment. Numerous strategies were suggested to avoid contamination of healthcare workers. Modified NIV circuits with 3-D printed materials [33] and canopies [34] were suggested as approaches to reduce aerosolisation. However, these suggestions were not without consequences for the delivery of care. It was shown that the change in NIV circuits and the insertion of antimicrobial filters at the expiratory port was associated with an increase in dead space [35] and work of breathing, and changes in ventilator performance, including an increased rate of patient–ventilator asynchrony [36] that are associated with a worse prognosis [37].

These recommendations to limit exposure to aerosol-generating procedures contributed to an increase in the burden of care needed for the management of infected patients. Even though preliminary surface analysis showed reassuring results [38], data exploring aerosol generation were communicated after the second wave of the pandemic [39]. These studies showed that the delivery of CPAP and NIV was not associated with aerosol emission [40]. However, proper mask fitting is crucial to avoid leaks that are associated with viral aerosol dispersion [41]. It was also shown that the use of HFT generated aerosols; however, most of them originated from the high-flow device rather than from the patient [42].

Currently, guidelines recommend the use of eye protection for all care of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the use of N95 masks for aerosol-generating procedures (physiotherapy, bronchoscopy, intubation). In addition, good aeration should be organised in all rooms in which patients with SARS-CoV-2 are hospitalised [43].

The issue of patient self-inflicted lung injury and how to make spontaneous effort non-injurious during noninvasive respiratory support therapies

Ventilator-inflicted lung injury is a well-known complication from mechanical ventilation that contributes to the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and has led to a reduction in the targeted volume set during IMV [44]. For patients that do not require IMV, noninvasive respiratory support therapies can be given to patients [29]; however, in such circumstances, it is not possible to control the tidal volume generated by the patient. The patient's spontaneous tidal volume can be important and may contribute to lung injury itself. Patients' high respiratory drive and intense inspiratory effort result in large tidal volumes and dynamic variations in transpulmonary pressure that may worsen lung damage. The consequent generation of asynchronous and inhomogeneous alveolar ventilation, mainly in the dependent dorsal region, defined as “pendelluft phenomenon”, promotes an abnormal increase in transvascular pressure that worsens the alveolar and interstitial oedema and heterogeneous transmission of muscular pressure and diaphragmatic injury, all yielding ventilator inhomogeneity, local overstretch and worsening inflammation. The regional increase in transpulmonary pressure increases lung stress and may perpetuate lung injury; this phenomenon occurring during spontaneous breathing is described as patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) [45]. High PEEP promotes lung recruitment during spontaneous breathing and avoids the emergence of the pendelluft phenomenon mitigating lung injury [46]. However, an increased risk of developing P-SILI may occur because of the persistence of high inspiratory effort despite noninvasive respiratory support therapies, which is associated with treatment failure and need for IMV [47, 48].

With the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the use of noninvasive respiratory support therapies has increased significantly. COVID-19-related AHRF is associated with an increased respiratory drive that may contribute to the onset of P-SILI [49]. Increased respiratory drive, in combination with the alveolar damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, may contribute to the increased rate of pneumomediastinum reported in SARS-CoV-2 infection [50, 51].

Monitoring respiratory effort without invasive measurements is challenging in clinical practice in patients using COT or noninvasive respiratory support therapies. However, bedside clinical evaluation may provide useful insights, especially when patients have an increased respiratory rate (RR) and large thoracic movements. In this setting, an improvement in the ROX index (the ratio between RR and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)/FIO2) may also be a useful tool [52]. Preliminary results have suggested that monitoring pressure swings in HFT nasal cannula may be an easy-to-use surrogate of respiratory effort [53]. For patients treated with CPAP [54], data from the ventilator, in the absence of leaks, can provide information on the estimated delivered tidal volume [55].

Monitoring of noninvasive respiratory support therapies in AHRF

As an intervention made in a critical or “semi-critical” patient, and due to the failure rate reported in most trials (ranging from 20 to 50% [56]), cautious monitoring of the response to noninvasive respiratory support therapies is always needed. Monitoring tools for noninvasive respiratory support therapies may be divided into three different categories: bedside clinical variables and physiological scales, physiological “invasive” measurements, and imaging techniques (table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Tools for monitoring noninvasive respiratory support therapies in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure

Bedside clinical variables and physiological scales

Simple clinical observation may be enough to determine when a patient is at high risk of failure. The initial severity of the oxygenation impairment (i.e. PaO2/FIO2 <150 mmHg) [23] or the lack of improvement [57] may be predictors or indicators of noninvasive respiratory support therapy failure. In ICU or high-dependency unit settings, arterial catheterisation may allow for frequent arterial blood gas sampling; however, it is not a continuous monitoring tool and can be associated with vascular injuries [58]. As noted by Winck and Scala [59], when using high FIO2, PaO2/FIO2 ratio may not reflect the severity of the exchange, and baseline arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide needs to be considered; perhaps the use of the alveolo–arterial gradient may be more accurate.

Oxygenation can be continuously monitored by peripheral pulse oximetry. It is reliable, easy to use, noninvasive and widely available, but in severely hypoxaemic patients it may have some limitations. In particular, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, a phenomenon called “silent hypoxia” disconcerted physicians. Awareness of the limitations of pulse oximetry and the lack of information on the whole gas exchange (as it does not provide information on hypo- or hypercapnia) are necessary to avoid misinterpretation [60, 61].

RR is one of the most relevant physiological variables related to the success or failure of noninvasive respiratory support therapies. The main advantages of RR are that it is easily measured at the bedside and can be continuously recorded. Although it is poorly correlated to the intensity of the inspiratory effort [62], a high RR at the beginning or the absence of its decrease after a short period of noninvasive respiratory support therapy may reflect the severity and high probability of failure. Blez et al. [63] evaluated the change in RR at 30 min after starting noninvasive respiratory support therapies, as a sole predictor of success or failure, with a similar performance as other more commonly used indexes. With these simple bedside physiological measurements some clinical scales have been proposed: a purely clinical scale, with easy-to-record variables, is the WOB (work of breathing) scale [64]. Developed for COVID-19 patients, it takes into account the RR, the presence of nasal flaring, and the use of accessory muscles (sternocleidomastoid and abdominal muscles) and it is intended to measure “inspiratory effort”.

The HACOR score (heart rate, acidosis, consciousness level, oxygenation, and RR) has been proposed as a bedside tool for predicting NIV failure [65]. It has been recently updated, including six new variables related to the aetiology of ARDS (pneumonia, cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, pulmonary ARDS, immunosuppression, and septic shock) and the sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA score) [66]. It seems to improve diagnostic capabilities when compared with the “original” HACOR score, especially at baseline and in the first 1–2 h.

Another score of interest in predicting outcomes under HFT is the ratio of SpO2/FIO2 to respiratory rate (Respiratory rate–OXygenation, ROX index) [67], which was developed and validated as a tool for predicting success or failure of HFT. It is a simple and reliable tool that is broadly available, but with the limitations of both the SpO2 measurement and the physiological meaning of the RR. In COVID-19 patients, Chandel et al. [68] demonstrated that a ROX index >3.0 at 2, 6 and 12 h after initiation of HFT was 85.3% sensitive for identifying HFT success. By contrast, Zucman et al. [69] determined that the most sensitive cut-off point for intubation risk was 5.37 at 4 h. Regarding patients with HFT outside ICU, Vega et al. [70] determined that the value with the highest sensitivity was 5.9, while the classic value of 4.88 was not sufficiently discriminating. Other authors found different cut-off levels, such as 4.9, and evaluated the ability to avert delayed intubation-induced mortality [71]. When tested in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, they seem to have similar performance but are humbler than what was reported in the original development and validation papers. In more detail, for a ROX index cut-off point of 5.6 a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 65% were reported, while for a HACOR scale of 5.5 a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 65% were noted [72]. The ROX index has also been tested in COVID-19 patients receiving CPAP with promising results in short-term follow-up: a ROX index <6.64 after 24 h of CPAP shows excellent accuracy in predicting treatment failure [73].

Monitoring the trends of all these scores in conjunction with clinical judgement may be a more useful and cautious approach rather than focusing on a single figure of a score.

Physiological “invasive” measurements

In recent years, there has been increased interest in the concept of alveolar damage induced by spontaneously breathing patients with increased respiratory drive, also known as P-SILI. Under respiratory distress, a spontaneously breathing patient may exhibit huge swings in transpulmonary pressure. Some conflicting data (and opinions) have been flowing in the medical literature in the past few years [74]. The gradient between the alveolar pressure and the pleural pressure (approached by the oesophageal pressure measurement (Peso)), known as the transpulmonary pressure, reflects the expenditure of pressure to distend the chest wall and the lung. High transpulmonary, dynamic driving pressures are linked to the development of P-SILI. Inadequate settings of CPAP or NIV and/or persistent high inspiratory effort may be detected by monitoring Peso, allowing for a timely decision on when IMV and muscle relaxation may be needed. Some physiological studies have focused on the ability of NIV, in contrast with HFT and CPAP, to decrease inspiratory effort, thus, maintaining transpulmonary pressure within safe levels with adequate levels of PEEP [75]. Tonelli et al. [48] showed that the magnitude of inspiratory effort relief, as assessed by Peso variation within the first 2 h of NIV, represents an early and accurate predictor of NIV outcome at 24 h. Coppola et al. [76] demonstrated that, with continuous measurement of Peso, the early predictors of failure (measured on the first day of treatment) under CPAP or pressure support treatment were the PaO2/FIO2 ratio, the intensity of changes in Peso, and the total lung stress. This last concept, which was the only independent factor related to failure in the multivariate analysis, is equivalent to the total transpulmonary pressure. Classical approaches to pulmonary mechanics are limited in the non-intubated patient (i.e. an occlusion manoeuvre cannot be performed), but Peso can be a useful tool to determine the bounds of safety for noninvasive respiratory support therapies.

Imaging techniques: lung ultrasound and electrical impedance tomography

In recent years, there has been a progressive increase in interest in lung ultrasound (LUS) applied to acute respiratory failure. LUS can identify regional areas of atelectasis, can guide recruitment, and is simple, easy to use and to learn, broadly available and is a non-radiation technology. However, it may have some operator-dependent results, and it cannot evaluate the lung as a whole in a single view. Some authors have explored the utility of LUS to guide noninvasive respiratory support therapies, focusing on assessment of recruitability. As an example, it can guide the indication for prone positioning in patients receiving HFT [77].

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is also a non-radiation, noninvasive technology that provides dynamic lung aeration imaging. It is based on the difference in resistance to electrical currents between air and other tissues and can generate continuous imaging of the way the lung inflates and deflates through multiple respiratory cycles. EIT allows for the differentiation of regional differences in lung strain and stress and may guide the correct level of external pressure, avoiding regional overdistension [78]. Although it has been mostly used in a small number of patients, EIT can identify those patients where there is still an ability to recruit the lung under positive pressure. End-expiratory lung impedance may be the variable that can help to titrate the optimal level of positive pressure needed. It can also drive the use of complementary interventions, such as the “awake prone position”, providing a more accurate evaluation of their usefulness [79].

Noninvasive respiratory support therapies trends during the COVID-19 pandemic

Noninvasive respiratory support therapies were widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a marked variability worldwide, in an attempt to avoid the need for IMV despite the lack of consensus towards their use [80, 81]. A recent, pre-pandemic network meta-analysis conducted by Ferreyro et al. [16] revealed that noninvasive respiratory support therapies might be more effective than COT alone for the management of patients with AHRF. The meta-analysis showed that treatment with NIV delivered by both helmet and mask was significantly associated with a lower risk of death, and the use of both NIV and HFT decreased the risk of endotracheal intubation compared with COT in adults with AHRF. However, most of the studies included in this meta-analysis enrolled patients with AHRF due to community-acquired pneumonia, and the pathophysiological abnormalities underlying hypoxaemia in patients with pandemic viral illness might be different.

Recently, a growing number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tried to provide evidence on the effectiveness of noninvasive respiratory support therapies in the management of COVID-19-associated AHRF. The first study comparing noninvasive respiratory support therapies in patients with COVID-19-associated AHRF was the Italian multicentre HENIVOT trial [82], which compared helmet-NIV (delivered as bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP)) and HFT and reported no difference in days free of respiratory support within 28 days (20 (IQR, 0–25) versus 18 (IQR, 0–22) days). However, the intubation rate in the helmet group was significantly lower compared to HFT (30% versus 51%, unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.41 (95% CI 0.18–0.89)) [82].

A large multicentre RCT conducted in 48 hospitals in the UK, the RECOVERY-RS trial, recruited 1273 hospitalised COVID-19 patients with an oxygen saturation of 94% or less despite receiving a FIO2 of at least 0.40. Patients were randomised to receive either CPAP, HFT, or COT, in a parallel group, open label, three arm, adaptive RCT [54]. CPAP, when compared with COT, significantly reduced the combined primary endpoint of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days (36.3% versus 44.4%; unadjusted OR 0.72 (95% CI 0.53–0.96), p=0.03). Most of the difference in the primary outcome was driven by a decrease in the intubation rate (33.4% versus 41.3%, OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.53–0.96)), while CPAP did not reduce mortality compared with COT (16.7% versus 19.2%, OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.58–0.96)). There was no significant difference between HFT versus COT in the primary outcome. However, the study did not meet the pre-planned sample size, and this may have reduced the precision in the estimate of the treatment effect with CPAP and the study may have been underpowered for the comparison between HFT and COT.

The HiFLo-COVID RCT [83], conducted in three centres in Colombia, demonstrated that among patients with severe COVID-19 (PaO2/FIO2 <200 mmHg) HFT significantly reduced the risk of intubation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 (95% CI 0.39–0.96), p=0.03) and time to clinical recovery (HR 1.39 (95% CI 1.00–1.92), p=0.047) compared with COT. However, a recently published international multicentre RCT, the COVID-HIGH trial [84] performed on patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia (PaO2/FIO2 >200 and <300 mmHg), demonstrated that the use of HFT did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support (absolute risk difference −8.2% (95% CI −18–1.4%); risk ratio 0.79 (95% CI 0.59–1.05), p=0.09) or the likelihood of clinical recovery (69.1% versus 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI −1.5–18.0%), risk ratio 1.14 (95% CI 0.98–1.32)) compared with COT. Thus, the attractive pathophysiological effects of HFT are unlikely to significantly affect the clinical course of COVID-19 pneumonia-related mild hypoxaemia compared with COT. However, the study power was limited; therefore, a clinically meaningful benefit from HFT in this patient population could not be definitely ruled out. HELMET-COVID [85] was a multicentre RCT conducted in Saudi Arabia investigating the use of helmet-NIV (delivered as BIPAP) compared with usual respiratory support (mask NIV, HFT and COT) in 320 adults with AHRF related to COVID-19. Helmet-NIV did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support (27.0% in the helmet group versus 26.1% in the usual respiratory support group; risk difference 1.0% (95% CI −8.7–10.6%); relative risk 1.04 (95% CI 0.72–1.49), p=0.85). However, the lack of a clinically important treatment effect for helmet-NIV compared with the usual respiratory support group might be related to a reduced study power due to a lower-than-expected event rate. The SOHO-COVID trial [86] was a RCT conducted in 34 ICUs in France that compared the use of HFT and COT in 711 patients with AHRF due to COVID-19. HFT did not significantly reduce the mortality rate at day 28, which was 10% (36 out of 357) with HFT and 11% (40 out of 354) with COT (absolute difference −1.2% (95% CI −5.8– 3.4%), p=0.60). The COVIDICUS trial [87] was a RCT including 546 patients and comparing those receiving high-dose dexamethasone with standard of care dexamethasone and assessing HFT or CPAP compared with COT. No significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at 28 days among oxygenation strategies compared with COT was found (COT versus CPAP: HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.71–1.63); COT versus HFT: HR 1.04 (95% CI 0.69–1.55)).

Noninvasive oxygenation strategies algorithm

For early screening of noninvasive respiratory support therapies failure, some authors have proposed specific nomograms [88] or algorithms [59]. Despite the accumulated evidence supporting the use of different noninvasive respiratory support therapies in COVID-19-related AHRF, when to start, escalate and de-escalate therapy, and which is the best respiratory support option for the different timing/phenotype of the disease still needs to be completely defined. A balance between the benefits of maintaining spontaneous breathing and avoiding IMV while preventing the risk of prolonged exposure to strong inspiratory effort and treatment failure is strongly advised. A noninvasive oxygenation strategy algorithm is proposed in figure 2. To allow better tolerance, HFT can be used between CPAP/NIV sessions [20], with close monitoring for approximately 3 h, with a focus on the ROX index [67], other respiratory strain scales [89] and, whenever possible, tidal volumes [90].

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Noninvasive oxygenation strategy algorithm. COT: conventional oxygen therapy; SpO2: peripheral oxygen saturation; HFT: high-flow oxygen therapy; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; NIV: noninvasive ventilation; PaO2: arterial partial pressure of oxygen; FIO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; IMV: invasive mechanical ventilation; RR: respiratory rate; ROX index: the ratio between RR and SpO2/FIO2; HACOR score: heart rate, acidosis, consciousness level, oxygenation, and RR; WOB: work of breathing; LUS: lung ultrasound; EIT: electric impedance tomography.

Noninvasive respiratory support therapies in COVID-19-related AHRF: important indicators

Reviewing the seven recent RCTs addressing the application of noninvasive respiratory support therapies in COVID-19 [54, 82–87], the protocols employed, methodology and data collected in the published studies are somewhat heterogeneous. To better interpret the results of these trials, a full set of parameters and clinical details are essential (table 2). In fact, in one study PaO2/FIO2 ratio was not available [87]. The majority of the studies were undertaken in the ICU [82, 83, 85–87] and only four had specific and uniform equipment [82, 85–87], with one [85] allowing six different ventilators in the helmet arm. Sedation was implemented in two trials [82, 85] and pronation was used with differing percentages in all except one trial [87]. Excluding the COVID-HIGH trial [84] (that included less severe patients), efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support therapies to avoid intubation at 28 days was maximal in the helmet arm of the HENIVOT trial [82] and minimal in the HFT arm of the SOHO-COVID trial [86]. Mask on time was reported in three trials [82, 85, 86] and was clearly detailed (in hours) in the HELMET COVID trial [85].

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials

Complementary interventions

Combined HFT and NIV

In clinical practice, it is not common to employ a single respiratory support strategy throughout the course of the disease. A stepwise increase from a first-line HFT approach to a step up to positive pressure therapy in cases with a lack of response has been proposed. This may have the pitfall of rescuing very few patients, as most of those who fail HFT will also fail in a positive pressure trial and may need intubation after all [91]. Thus, it has been considered an inappropriate strategy by expert group recommendations [92], suggesting that HFT failure may prompt direct intubation. More interesting is the sequential and combined use of both positive pressure and HFT. Patients may need to pause NIV for oral intake, hygiene, or even due to a need for a rest from the mask to avoid pressure sores, and HFT may be an excellent tool to maintain oxygenation and some (small) degree of positive pressure that may ameliorate de-recruitment [9].

Self-proning

Prone position (PP) in non-intubated patients has been proposed to increase oxygenation. In intubated ARDS patients, PP has multiple advantages as a tool that increases oxygenation, improves ventilation of dependent (collapsed) areas, and helps lung recruitment. A mean session duration of 16 h each day is recommended [93]. In the pre-COVID-19 era, it was also proposed as a feasible intervention in non-intubated patients based on some observational studies of moderate severity ARDS [94]. Thus, when COVID-19 was recognised as an ARDS condition, multiple observational studies showed feasibility and improvements in oxygenation after pronation of non-intubated patients, with or without noninvasive respiratory support therapies. Subsequently, some cohort observational studies gave more insights on the utility of this technique, demonstrating persistent oxygenation improvement after shifting from supine to prone in at least half of the patients [95, 96]. Therefore, experts recommended self-proning whenever patients needed supplemental oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation above 90% [97]. The POSITIONED study by Jagan et al. [98] found that self-prone positioning was associated with a decrease in intubation rates and mortality in patients without noninvasive respiratory support therapies.

However, in a retrospective study, Padrao et al. [99] found no differences in outcomes between self-proning and standard therapy in patients on COT. The APRONOX study compared outcomes of patients with different oxygenation support who underwent PP for at least 2 h duration [100]. A mean duration of 12 h per time of admission was achieved and SpO2/FIO2 ratio improved from 183 to 212 mmHg, with fewer patients requiring IMV in the prone group (23% versus 40%). In a meta-trial that included patients from six different trials under HFT with a mean PaO2/FIO2 at randomisation of around 150 mmHg, Ehrmann et al. [101] compared patients in the prone arm with the standard treatment arm. While prone time was hugely variable among participants and trials (with a mean of 5.6 h), patients in the prone group had a lower rate of a composite outcome (treatment failure or death). A number needed to treat of 15 to avoid treatment failure was demonstrated. No differences between groups were noted in terms of 28-day mortality, nor a worse outcome between those who failed in both groups (indirectly showing that treatment failure under a prone protocol has not got a worse prognosis than that under standard treatment).

Combining noninvasive respiratory support therapies with PP may be demanding both technically and in terms of human resources, but it seems to offer an advantage in reducing intubation rate in patients with moderate ARDS, especially when combining NIV and PP [102]. In contrast, other authors found no differences when using awake PP in patients requiring HFT [103]. Nevertheless, there are some shadows in the use of the “self-proning” strategy, despite the well documented benefits on oxygenation. A high proportion of patients do not tolerate this position [95, 104, 105]. Recent systematic reviews have also demonstrated an improvement in oxygenation, but no effect on intubation rates [106].

Due to some difficulties in the PP with NIV interfaces, such as the helmet, some variants that may also increase oxygenation have also been proposed. A so-called “Rodin's thinker” position [107], named after the famous sculpture, with the patient resting his chest on a chair in a semi-prone position, was found to improve oxygenation in 25 patients, maintaining its benefits after “re-supination”. Retucci et al. [108] proposed a trial of helmet CPAP mixing lateral and PP, but very few improvements were found, and benefits were lost after re-supination.

Duration of PP is also controversial. While it is known that in intubated patients, benefits are obtained with at least 16 h of PP [93, 109], there is great variability in the length of prone in the published experience; however, it seems that periods of less than an hour may not achieve relevant results. This heterogeneity in results and methods for the “self-proning” intervention has led to conflicting recommendations, such as recommendations from the Society of Critical Care Medicine, which considered that there was not enough evidence to recommend it [110]. Finally, the most recent meta-analysis, including more than 130 studies, with thousands of patients included, concluded that PP was able to improve oxygenation and reduce intubation rates, so it was recommended in patients with AHRF due to COVID-19 and a need for advanced respiratory support [111]. To date, PP seems to be a promising strategy that needs further evaluation in future high-quality research [112].

Automated controlled oxygen delivery

Oxygen control while on noninvasive respiratory support therapies may be a critical factor to ensure success. It is well known that hyperoxygenation may have deleterious effects, especially in hypoventilation patients, such as some COPD patients. But also, hypoxaemia may develop progressively, and SpO2 may frequently change over time, and the response to adequately titrate oxygen therapy may not be fast enough.

To address this need for fast response titration, automated oxygen delivered systems have been developed. A meta-analysis showed that automatic oxygen titration was associated with a reduction in length of both hospital stay and oxygen therapy, but no effects were found in terms of intubation rates or mortality [113]. For noninvasive respiratory support therapies, closed-loop oxygen titration systems have been integrated into respiratory support devices. In the HILOOP trial, Roca et al. [114] demonstrated that an automated oxygen titration system was able to ensure that SpO2 was kept between pre-set targets for more time, with lower intervention and workload for healthcare workers than manual titration. Similarly, Harper et al. [115] found that patients using the automated oxygen delivery spent more than 96% of the time within the oxygenation range limits, while in the manual group, it was 71% of the time.

In pandemic scenarios, with overwhelming human workload demands and a shortage of oxygen supplies, these new automated methods may allow us to decrease the need for human interventions in oxygen delivery adjustments, and optimise oxygen consumption, rationalising its supply.

Conclusions

In COVID-19-related AHRF, noninvasive respiratory support therapies should be considered safe and effective in the proper setting and with experienced teams. A window of opportunity with adequate monitoring should be considered before switching to IMV. Alternating and sequential noninvasive respiratory support therapies could optimise results associated with timely awake proning, in selected patients.

Key points

  • Rigorous protocols, adequate devices and experienced teams are key to achieve the best results with noninvasive respiratory support therapies in COVID-19-related AHRF.

  • When using noninvasive respiratory support therapy circuits with antiviral filters, an increase in dead space and patient–ventilator asynchrony may arise and may impact effectiveness.

  • Using noninvasive respiratory support therapies (especially NIV) in patients with high respiratory effort can induce P-SILI and contribute to worsening ARDS.

  • Evolution of the disease and patient phenotypes may guide initiation and escalation of noninvasive respiratory support therapies.

Self-evaluation questions

  1. Considering the different noninvasive respiratory therapies in COVID-19-related AHRF, which of the following statement(s) is/are true?

    1. HFT is better than CPAP

    2. NIV may increase the risk of P-SILI

    3. Helmet-NIV does not increase duration of therapy

    4. All noninvasive respiratory support therapies increase aerosolisation of virus

  2. Which clinical assessment tool can be used for prediction of noninvasive respiratory support therapies failure in AHRF?

    1. HACOR and ROX index

    2. SOFA score

    3. HACOR, ROX index and WOB scale

    4. HACOR, ROX index and SOFA score

  3. Prone positioning combined with noninvasive respiratory support therapies:

    1. has no advantages

    2. determines only a transient improvement in oxygenation

    3. reduces the risk of intubation and mortality

    4. reduces the risk of intubation but not mortality

  4. Regarding noninvasive respiratory support therapies in COVID-19-AHRF, which of the following statement(s) is/are true?

    1. Sedation does not improve tolerance to noninvasive respiratory support therapies

    2. HFT is not as well tolerated as CPAP

    3. Oxygen supplementation does not need careful titration

    4. Including a viral filter in the circuit may alter patient–ventilator synchrony

Suggested answers

  1. b.

  2. c.

  3. d.

  4. d.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: C. Crimi reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from ResMed, Fisher & Paykel, GSK, AstraZeneca and Sanofi, outside the submitted work; C. Crimi is Secretary of ERS Assembly 02.02 on Noninvasive ventilatory support. P. Murphy reports grants or contracts to his institution from Fisher & Paykel, Resmed, Breas Medical, and Philips Respironics, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Resmed, outside the submitted work; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Philips Respironics, Resmed, Fisher & Paykel, Chiesi, Genzyme, and Breas Medical, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Breas Medical, outside the submitted work; and loans of equipment to his institution from Philips Respironics, Resmed, Fisher & Paykel, and Breas Medical, outside the submitted work. M. Patout reports grants or contracts from Fisher & Paykel, Resmed, and Asten Santé, outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Philips Respironics, Resmed, Asten Santé, and GSK, outside the submitted work; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Philips Respironics, Air Liquide Médical, Resmed, Antadir, Fisher & Paykel, Elivie, SOS Oxygène, Loewenstein, Asten Santé, and Chiesi, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Asten Santé, outside the submitted work; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Resmed, Philips Respironics, and GSK, outside the submitted work; stock or stock options from Kernel Biomedical, outside the submitted work; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Philips Respironics, Resmed, and Fisher & Paykel, outside the submitted work. J. Sayas reports grants or contracts from SEPAR+Philips, outside the submitted work; participation on Advisory Boards for RESMED, and Philips, outside the submitted work; and receipt of equipment from Resmed, Breas, Philips, and Maquet (temporal use of NIV devices for teaching and evaluating purposes), outside the submitted work. J.C. Winck reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Philips Respironics, Sentec, Breas, Vitalaire, and Fisher & Paykel, outside the submitted work; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Vitalaire, outside the submitted work.

  • Received January 24, 2023.
  • Accepted April 17, 2023.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2023
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Breathe articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bhatraju PK,
    2. Ghassemieh BJ,
    3. Nichols M, et al.
    Covid-19 in critically ill patients in the seattle region – case series. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 2012–2022. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2004500
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Dupuis C,
    2. Bouadma L,
    3. de Montmollin E, et al.
    Association between early invasive mechanical ventilation and day-60 mortality in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease-2019 pneumonia. Crit Care Explor 2021; 3: e0329. doi:10.1097/CCE.0000000000000329
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Mellado-Artigas R,
    2. Ferreyro BL,
    3. Angriman F, et al.
    High-flow nasal oxygen in patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure. Crit Care 2021; 25: 58. doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03469-w
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Dhand R,
    2. Li J
    . Coughs and sneezes: their role in transmission of respiratory viral infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 651–659. doi:10.1164/rccm.202004-1263PP
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Ball L,
    2. Robba C,
    3. Herrmann J, et al.
    Early versus late intubation in COVID-19 patients failing helmet CPAP: a quantitative computed tomography study. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2022; 301: 103889. doi:10.1016/j.resp.2022.103889
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Mebrate Y,
    2. Phillips S,
    3. Field D, et al.
    Modification of a domiciliary ventilator to increase FiO2: an off-label modification which may be of value in COVID-19. Thorax 2021; 76: 83–85. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215487
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Noto A,
    2. Crimi C,
    3. Cortegiani A, et al.
    Performance of EasyBreath Decathlon Snorkeling mask for delivering continuous positive airway pressure. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 5559. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-85093-w
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Minami T,
    2. Kai S,
    3. Tanaka T, et al.
    Non-invasive ventilation using a novel ventilator and non-vented full-face mask for patients with respiratory failure during the COVID-19 pandemic: report of three cases. Respir Investig 2022; 60: 607–611. doi:10.1016/j.resinv.2022.03.005
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Franco C,
    2. Facciolongo N,
    3. Tonelli R, 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. doi:10.1183/13993003.02130-2020
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Dar M,
    2. Swamy L,
    3. Gavin D, et al.
    Mechanical-ventilation supply and options for the COVID-19 pandemic. leveraging all available resources for a limited resource in a crisis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2021; 18: 408–416. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.202004-317CME
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Parker AJ,
    2. Mishra M,
    3. Tiwary P, et al.
    A tale of two waves: changes in the use of noninvasive ventilation and prone positioning in critical care management of coronavirus disease 2019. Crit Care Explor 2021; 3: e0587. doi:10.1097/CCE.0000000000000587
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Teran-Tinedo JR,
    2. Gonzalez-Rubio J,
    3. Najera A, et al.
    Clinical characteristics and respiratory care in hospitalized vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 patients. EClinicalMedicine 2022; 48: 101453. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101453
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Modes ME,
    2. Directo MP,
    3. Melgar M, et al.
    Clinical characteristics and outcomes among adults hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during periods of B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant predominance – one hospital, California, July 15–September 23, 2021, and December 21, 2021–January 27, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71: 217–223. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7106e2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Cammarota G,
    2. Esposito T,
    3. Azzolina D, et al.
    Noninvasive respiratory support outside the intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus-19 disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2021; 25: 268. doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03697-0
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Winck JC,
    2. Ambrosino N
    . COVID-19 pandemic and non invasive respiratory management: every Goliath needs a David. An evidence based evaluation of problems. Pulmonology 2020; 26: 213–220. doi:10.1016/j.pulmoe.2020.04.013
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Ferreyro BL,
    2. Angriman F,
    3. Munshi L, 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: 57–67. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.9524
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Vitacca M,
    2. Ambrosino N,
    3. Clini E, et al.
    Physiological response to pressure support ventilation delivered before and after extubation in patients not capable of totally spontaneous autonomous breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164: 638–641. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.164.4.2010046
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Antonelli M,
    2. Conti G,
    3. Pelosi P, et al.
    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. doi:10.1097/00003246-200203000-00019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Cortegiani A,
    2. Crimi C,
    3. Noto A, et al.
    Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on dyspnea, comfort, and respiratory rate. Crit Care 2019; 23: 201. doi:10.1186/s13054-019-2473-y
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Oczkowski S,
    2. Ergan B,
    3. Bos L, et al.
    ERS clinical practice guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J 2022; 59: 2101574. doi:10.1183/13993003.01574-2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Osadnik CR,
    2. Tee VS,
    3. Carson-Chahhoud KV, et al.
    Non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 7: CD004104. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004104.pub4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Davidson AC,
    2. Banham S,
    3. Elliott M, et al.
    BTS/ICS guideline for the ventilatory management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in adults. Thorax 2016; 71: Suppl. 2, ii1–ii35. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-208209
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Bellani G,
    2. Laffey JG,
    3. Pham T, 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. doi:10.1164/rccm.201606-1306OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Menga LS,
    2. Delle Cese L,
    3. Rosa T, et al.
    Respective effects of helmet pressure support, continuous positive airway pressure and nasal high-flow in hypoxemic respiratory failure: a randomized crossover clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; in press [https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202204-0629OC]. doi:10.1164/rccm.202204-0629OC
  24. ↵
    1. L'Her E,
    2. Deye N,
    3. Lellouche F, et al.
    Physiologic effects of noninvasive ventilation during acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 172: 1112–1118. doi:10.1164/rccm.200402-226OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Scala R,
    2. Pisani L
    . Noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure: which recipe for success? Eur Respir Rev 2018; 27: 180029. doi:10.1183/16000617.0029-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Rochwerg B,
    2. Brochard L,
    3. Elliott MW, et al.
    Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1602426. doi:10.1183/13993003.02426-2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Hernández G,
    2. Vaquero C,
    3. Colinas L, et al.
    Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs noninvasive ventilation on reintubation and postextubation respiratory failure in high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 316: 1565–1574. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14194
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Frat JP,
    2. Thille AW,
    3. Mercat A, et al.
    High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2185–2196. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1503326
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Lewis SR,
    2. Baker PE,
    3. Parker R, et al.
    High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3: CD010172. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010172.pub3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Evans L,
    2. Rhodes A,
    3. Alhazzani W, et al.
    Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med 2021; 49: e1063–e1143. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005337
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. van Doremalen N,
    2. Bushmaker T,
    3. Morris DH, et al.
    Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1564–1567. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2004973
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Khonsari RH,
    2. Oranger M,
    3. Francois PM, et al.
    Quality versus emergency: how good were ventilation fittings produced by additive manufacturing to address shortages during the COVID19 pandemic? PLoS One 2022; 17: e0263808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263808
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Adir Y,
    2. Segol O,
    3. Kompaniets D, et al.
    COVID-19: minimising risk to healthcare workers during aerosol-producing respiratory therapy using an innovative constant flow canopy. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 2001017. doi:10.1183/13993003.01017-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Delorme M,
    2. Leroux K,
    3. Boussaid G, et al.
    Protective recommendations for non-invasive ventilation during COVID-19 pandemic: a bench evaluation of the effects of instrumental dead space on alveolar ventilation. Arch Bronconeumol 2021; 57: 28–33. doi:10.1016/j.arbres.2021.01.012
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Patout M,
    2. Fresnel E,
    3. Lujan M, et al.
    Recommended approaches to minimize aerosol dispersion of SARS-CoV-2 during noninvasive ventilatory support can cause ventilator performance deterioration: a benchmark comparative study. Chest 2021; 160: 175–186. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.02.047
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Carteaux G,
    2. Lyazidi A,
    3. Cordoba-Izquierdo A, et al.
    Patient-ventilator asynchrony during noninvasive ventilation: a bench and clinical study. Chest 2012; 142: 367–376. doi:10.1378/chest.11-2279
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Lomont A,
    2. Boubaya M,
    3. Khamis W, et al.
    Environmental contamination related to SARS-CoV-2 in ICU patients. ERJ Open Res 2020; 6: 00595-2020. doi:10.1183/23120541.00595-2020
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Arnold DT,
    2. Gregson FKA,
    3. Sheikh S, et al.
    Standard pleural interventions are not high-risk aerosol generating procedures. Eur Respir J 2021; 58: 2101064. doi:10.1183/13993003.01064-2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Winslow RL,
    2. Zhou J,
    3. Windle EF, et al.
    SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination from hospitalised patients with COVID-19 receiving aerosol-generating procedures. Thorax 2022; 77: 259–267. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-218035
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Landry SA,
    2. Barr JJ,
    3. MacDonald MI, et al.
    Viable virus aerosol propagation by positive airway pressure circuit leak and mitigation with a ventilated patient hood. Eur Respir J 2021; 57: 2003666. doi:10.1183/13993003.03666-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Hamilton FW,
    2. Gregson FKA,
    3. Arnold DT, et al.
    Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract: an analysis of aerosol generation from oxygen delivery systems. Thorax 2022; 77: 276–282. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217577
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    . Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. Date last updated: 27 September 2022. Date last accessed: 9 January 2023. www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html
  43. ↵
    1. Fan E,
    2. Del Sorbo L,
    3. Goligher EC, et al.
    An official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline: mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 1253–1263. doi:10.1164/rccm.201703-0548ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Brochard L,
    2. Slutsky A,
    3. Pesenti A
    . Mechanical ventilation to minimize progression of lung injury in acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 438–442. doi:10.1164/rccm.201605-1081CP
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Yoshida T,
    2. Roldan R,
    3. Beraldo MA, et al.
    Spontaneous effort during mechanical ventilation: maximal injury with less positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Med 2016; 44: e678–e688. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001649
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Yoshida T,
    2. Uchiyama A,
    3. Matsuura N, et al.
    The comparison of spontaneous breathing and muscle paralysis in two different severities of experimental lung injury. Crit Care Med 2013; 41: 536–545. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182711972
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Tonelli R,
    2. Fantini R,
    3. Tabbi L, 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. doi:10.1164/rccm.201912-2512OC
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Weaver L,
    2. Das A,
    3. Saffaran S, et al.
    High risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury in COVID-19 with frequently encountered spontaneous breathing patterns: a computational modelling study. Ann Intensive Care 2021; 11: 109. doi:10.1186/s13613-021-00904-7
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Blanc K,
    2. Bonnet N,
    3. Ouedraogo E, et al.
    Interstitial lung disease-related pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 patients. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7: 00014-2021. doi:10.1183/23120541.00014-2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Melhorn J,
    2. Achaiah A,
    3. Conway FM, et al.
    Pneumomediastinum in COVID-19: a phenotype of severe COVID-19 pneumonitis? The results of the United Kingdom (POETIC) survey. Eur Respir J 2022; 60: 2102522. doi:10.1183/13993003.02522-2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Elabbadi A,
    2. Urbina T,
    3. Berti E, et al.
    Spontaneous pneumomediastinum: a surrogate of P-SILI in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Crit Care 2022; 26: 350. doi:10.1186/s13054-022-04228-1
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Tonelli R,
    2. Cortegiani A,
    3. Marchioni A, et al.
    Nasal pressure swings as the measure of inspiratory effort in spontaneously breathing patients with de novo acute respiratory failure. Crit Care 2022; 26: 70. doi:10.1186/s13054-022-03938-w
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Perkins GD,
    2. Ji C,
    3. Connolly BA, et al.
    Effect of noninvasive respiratory strategies on intubation or mortality among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and COVID-19: the RECOVERY-RS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022; 327: 546–558. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.0028
    OpenUrlPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Contal O,
    2. Vignaux L,
    3. Combescure C, et al.
    Monitoring of noninvasive ventilation by built-in software of home bilevel ventilators: a bench study. Chest 2012; 141: 469–476. doi:10.1378/chest.11-0485
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Lemiale V,
    2. Mokart D,
    3. Resche-Rigon M, et al.
    Effect of noninvasive ventilation vs oxygen therapy on mortality among immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 314: 1711–1719. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12402
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Kangelaris KN,
    2. Ware LB,
    3. Wang CY, et al.
    Timing of intubation and clinical outcomes in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 2016; 44: 120–129. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001359
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Kim D,
    2. Arbra CA,
    3. Simon Ivey J, et al.
    Iatrogenic radial artery injuries: variable injury patterns, treatment times, and outcomes. Hand (N Y) 2021; 16: 93–98. doi:10.1177/1558944719844348
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Winck JC,
    2. Scala R
    . Non-invasive respiratory support paths in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: proposal of an algorithm. Pulmonology 2021; 27: 305–312. doi:10.1016/j.pulmoe.2020.12.005
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Tobin MJ,
    2. Laghi F,
    3. Jubran A
    . Why COVID-19 silent hypoxemia is baffling to physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 356–360. doi:10.1164/rccm.202006-2157CP
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Jounieaux V,
    2. Rodenstein DO,
    3. Mahjoub Y
    . On happy hypoxia and on sadly ignored “acute vascular distress syndrome” in patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 1598–1599. doi:10.1164/rccm.202006-2521LE
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Akoumianaki E,
    2. Vaporidi K,
    3. Georgopoulos D
    . The injurious effects of elevated or nonelevated respiratory rate during mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 199: 149–157. doi:10.1164/rccm.201804-0726CI
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Blez D,
    2. Soulier A,
    3. Bonnet F, et al.
    Monitoring of high-flow nasal cannula for SARS-CoV-2 severe pneumonia: less is more, better look at respiratory rate. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 2094–2095. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06199-9
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Apigo M,
    2. Schechtman J,
    3. Dhliwayo N, et al.
    Development of a work of breathing scale and monitoring need of intubation in COVID-19 pneumonia. Crit Care 2020; 24: 477. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03176-y
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. Duan J,
    2. Han X,
    3. Bai L, et al.
    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. doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4601-3
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Duan J,
    2. Chen L,
    3. Liu X, et al.
    An updated HACOR score for predicting the failure of noninvasive ventilation: a multicenter prospective observational study. Crit Care 2022; 26: 196. doi:10.1186/s13054-022-04060-7
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Roca O,
    2. Caralt B,
    3. Messika J, et al.
    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. doi:10.1164/rccm.201803-0589OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Chandel A,
    2. Patolia S,
    3. Brown AW, et al.
    High-flow nasal cannula therapy in COVID-19: using the ROX index to predict success. Respir Care 2021; 66: 909–919. doi:10.4187/respcare.08631
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Zucman N,
    2. Mullaert J,
    3. Roux D, et al.
    Prediction of outcome of nasal high flow use during COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 1924–1926. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06177-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Vega ML,
    2. Dongilli R,
    3. Olaizola G, et al.
    COVID-19 pneumonia and ROX index: time to set a new threshold for patients admitted outside the ICU. Authors’ reply. Pulmonology 2021; 27: 475–476. doi:10.1016/j.pulmoe.2021.07.001
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Panadero C,
    2. Abad-Fernandez A,
    3. Rio-Ramirez MT, et al.
    High-flow nasal cannula for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Multidiscip Respir Med 2020; 15: 693. doi:10.4081/mrm.2020.693
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Valencia CF,
    2. Lucero OD,
    3. Castro OC, et al.
    Comparison of ROX and HACOR scales to predict high-flow nasal cannula failure in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 22559. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02078-5
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Colaianni-Alfonso N,
    2. Montiel GC,
    3. Castro-Sayat M, et al.
    ROX index to predict CPAP outcome in hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Intensive Care Med 2022; 48: 1818–1819. doi:10.1007/s00134-022-06913-9
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Tobin MJ,
    2. Laghi F,
    3. Jubran A
    . P-SILI is not justification for intubation of COVID-19 patients. Ann Intensive Care 2020; 10: 105. doi:10.1186/s13613-020-00724-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Schifino G,
    2. Vega ML,
    3. Pisani L, et al.
    Effects of non-invasive respiratory supports on inspiratory effort in moderate-severe COVID-19 patients. A randomized physiological study. Eur J Intern Med 2022; 100: 110–118. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2022.04.012
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Coppola S,
    2. Chiumello D,
    3. Busana M, et al.
    Role of total lung stress on the progression of early COVID-19 pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47: 1130–1139. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06519-7
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    1. Ibarra-Estrada M,
    2. Gamero-Rodríguez MJ,
    3. García-de-Acilu M, et al.
    Lung ultrasound response to awake prone positioning predicts the need for intubation in patients with COVID-19 induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an observational study. Crit Care 2022; 26: 189. doi:10.1186/s13054-022-04064-3
    OpenUrl
  77. ↵
    1. Pulletz S,
    2. Krukewitt L,
    3. Gonzales-Rios P, et al.
    Dynamic relative regional strain visualized by electrical impedance tomography in patients suffering from COVID-19. J Clin Monit Comput 2022; 36: 975–985. doi:10.1007/s10877-021-00748-3
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    1. Rauseo M,
    2. Mirabella L,
    3. Laforgia D, et al.
    A pilot study on electrical impedance tomography during CPAP trial in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pneumonia: the bright side of non-invasive ventilation. Front Physiol 2021; 12: 728243. doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.728243
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. Crimi C,
    2. Noto A,
    3. Cortegiani A, et al.
    Noninvasive respiratory support in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other viral infections. Minerva Anestesiol 2020; 86: 1190–1204. doi:10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14785-0
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Crimi C,
    2. Pierucci P,
    3. Renda T, et al.
    High-flow nasal cannula and COVID-19: a clinical review. Respir Care 2022; 67: 227–240. doi:10.4187/respcare.09056
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Grieco DL,
    2. Menga LS,
    3. Cesarano M, et al.
    Effect of helmet noninvasive ventilation vs 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: 1731–1743. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4682
    OpenUrlPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Ospina-Tascon GA,
    2. Calderon-Tapia LE,
    3. Garcia AF, et al.
    Effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy on invasive mechanical ventilation and clinical recovery in patients with severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021; 326: 2161–2171. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.20714
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Crimi C,
    2. Noto A,
    3. Madotto F, et al.
    High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2023; 78: 354–361. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2022-218806
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. ↵
    1. Arabi YM,
    2. Aldekhyl S,
    3. Al Qahtani S, et al.
    Effect of helmet noninvasive ventilation vs usual respiratory support on mortality among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19: the HELMET-COVID randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022; 328: 1063–1072. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.15599
    OpenUrl
  85. ↵
    1. Frat JP,
    2. Quenot JP,
    3. Badie J, et al.
    Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen vs standard oxygen therapy on mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19: the SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022; 328: 1212–1222. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.15613
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Bouadma L,
    2. Mekontso-Dessap A,
    3. Burdet C, et al.
    High-dose dexamethasone and oxygen support strategies in intensive care unit patients with severe COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: the COVIDICUS randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2022; 182: 906–916. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.2168
    OpenUrl
  87. ↵
    1. Liu L,
    2. Xie J,
    3. Wu W, 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. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30316-2
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. Rola P,
    2. Farkas J,
    3. Spiegel R, et al.
    Rethinking the early intubation paradigm of COVID-19: time to change gears? Clin Exp Emerg Med 2020; 7: 78–80. doi:10.15441/ceem.20.043
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    1. Tonelli R,
    2. Busani S,
    3. Tabbi L, et al.
    Inspiratory effort and lung mechanics in spontaneously breathing patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19: a matched control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 204: 725–728. doi:10.1164/rccm.202104-1029LE
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. Luján M,
    2. Sayas J,
    3. Mediano O, et al.
    Non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19: a narrative review. Front Med 2021; 8: 788190. doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.788190
    OpenUrl
  91. ↵
    1. Griffiths M,
    2. Meade S,
    3. Summers C, et al.
    RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thorax 2022; 77: 129–135. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-216904
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Papazian L,
    2. Aubron C,
    3. Brochard L, et al.
    Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Intensive Care 2019; 9: 69. doi:10.1186/s13613-019-0540-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Scaravilli V,
    2. Grasselli G,
    3. Castagna L, et al.
    Prone positioning improves oxygenation in spontaneously breathing nonintubated patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a retrospective study. J Crit Care 2015; 30: 1390–1394. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.07.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Coppo A,
    2. Bellani G,
    3. Winterton D, 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. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30268-X
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    1. Zang X,
    2. Wang Q,
    3. Zhou H, et al.
    Efficacy of early prone position for COVID-19 patients with severe hypoxia: a single-center prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 1927–1929. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06182-4
    OpenUrl
  96. ↵
    1. Nasa P,
    2. Azoulay E,
    3. Khanna AK, et al.
    Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method. Crit Care 2021; 25: 106. doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03491-y
    OpenUrl
  97. ↵
    1. Jagan N,
    2. Morrow LE,
    3. Walters RW, et al.
    The POSITIONED study: prone positioning in nonventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients – a retrospective analysis. Crit Care Explor 2020; 2: e0229. doi:10.1097/CCE.0000000000000229
    OpenUrl
  98. ↵
    1. Padrao EMH,
    2. Valente FS,
    3. Besen B, 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. doi:10.1111/acem.14160
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Perez-Nieto OR,
    2. Escarraman-Martinez D
    . Awake prone positioning and oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19: the APRONOX study. Eur Respir J 2022; 59: 2100265. doi:10.1183/13993003.00265-2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. ↵
    1. Ehrmann S,
    2. Li J,
    3. Ibarra-Estrada M, et al.
    Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, controlled, multinational, open-label meta-trial. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9: 1387–1395. doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(21)00356-8
    OpenUrl
  101. ↵
    1. Ding L,
    2. Wang L,
    3. Ma W, et al.
    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. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-2738-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Ferrando C,
    2. Mellado-Artigas R,
    3. Gea A, 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. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03314-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Bastoni D,
    2. Poggiali E,
    3. Vercelli A, et al.
    Prone positioning in patients treated with non-invasive ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia in an Italian emergency department. Emerg Med J 2020; 37: 565–566. doi:10.1136/emermed-2020-209744
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  104. ↵
    1. Sartini C,
    2. Tresoldi M,
    3. Scarpellini P, et al.
    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. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.7861
    OpenUrlPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Pavlov I,
    2. He H,
    3. McNicholas B, et al.
    Awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Respir Care 2022; 67: 102–114. doi:10.4187/respcare.09191
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. ↵
    1. Coppo A,
    2. Winterton D,
    3. Benini A, et al.
    Rodin's thinker: an alternative position in awake patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 204: 728–730. doi:10.1164/rccm.202104-0915LE
    OpenUrl
  107. ↵
    1. Retucci M,
    2. Aliberti S,
    3. Ceruti C, et al.
    Prone and lateral positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 pneumonia undergoing noninvasive helmet CPAP treatment. Chest 2020; 158: 2431–2435. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.006
    OpenUrlPubMed
  108. ↵
    1. Guerin C,
    2. Reignier J,
    3. Richard JC, et al.
    Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 2159–2168. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1214103
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Alhazzani W,
    2. Evans L,
    3. Alshamsi F, et al.
    Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines on the management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: first update. Crit Care Med 2021; 49: e219–e234. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004899
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Li J,
    2. Luo J,
    3. Pavlov I, et al.
    Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2022; 10: 573–583. doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(22)00043-1
    OpenUrl
  111. ↵
    1. Crimi C,
    2. Ambrosino N
    . A new gambler at the table of management of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure. Changing position to do it better? Pulmonology 2023; in press [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pulmoe.2023.02.010]. doi:10.1016/j.pulmoe.2023.02.010
  112. ↵
    1. Denault MH,
    2. Péloquin F,
    3. Lajoie AC, et al.
    Automatic versus manual oxygen titration in patients requiring supplemental oxygen in the hospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respiration 2019; 98: 178–188. doi:10.1159/000499119
    OpenUrlPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Roca O,
    2. Caritg O,
    3. Santafé M, et al.
    Closed-loop oxygen control improves oxygen therapy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure patients under high flow nasal oxygen: a randomized cross-over study (the HILOOP study). Crit Care 2022; 26: 108. doi:10.1186/s13054-022-03970-w
    OpenUrlPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Harper J,
    2. Kearns N,
    3. Bird G, et al.
    Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open Respir Res 2021; 8: e000843. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000843
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 19 Issue 1 Table of Contents
Breathe: 19 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Lessons from COVID-19 in the management of acute respiratory failure
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Lessons from COVID-19 in the management of acute respiratory failure
Claudia Crimi, Patrick Murphy, Maxime Patout, Javier Sayas, Joao Carlos Winck
Breathe Mar 2023, 19 (1) 230035; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0035-2023

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Lessons from COVID-19 in the management of acute respiratory failure
Claudia Crimi, Patrick Murphy, Maxime Patout, Javier Sayas, Joao Carlos Winck
Breathe Mar 2023, 19 (1) 230035; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0035-2023
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Description of noninvasive respiratory support therapies
    • Noninvasive respiratory support therapies in AHRF: evidence before the COVID-19 pandemic
    • Noninvasive respiratory support therapies: an aerosol-generating procedure?
    • The issue of patient self-inflicted lung injury and how to make spontaneous effort non-injurious during noninvasive respiratory support therapies
    • Monitoring of noninvasive respiratory support therapies in AHRF
    • Noninvasive respiratory support therapies trends during the COVID-19 pandemic
    • Noninvasive oxygenation strategies algorithm
    • Noninvasive respiratory support therapies in COVID-19-related AHRF: important indicators
    • Complementary interventions
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Caring for patients with advanced COPD
  • Management of difficult-to-treat asthma in adolescence and young adults
Show more Reviews

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About Breathe

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Intructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 1810-6838
Online ISSN: 2073-4735

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society