ABSTRACT
Rationale Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is the major complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet optimal respiratory support strategies are uncertain.
Objectives To describe outcomes with high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in COVID-19 AHRF and identify individual factors associated with failure.
Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adults with COVID-19 treated with HFNC and/or NIPPV to describe rates of success (live discharge without endotracheal intubation (ETI)), and identify characteristics associated with failure (ETI and/or in-hospital mortality) using Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard models.
Results A total of 331 and 747 patients received HFNC and NIPPV as the highest level of non-invasive respiratory support, respectively; 154 (46.5%) in the HFNC cohort and 167 (22.4%) in the NIPPV cohort were successfully discharged without requiring ETI. In adjusted models, significantly increased risk of HFNC and NIPPV failure was seen among patients with cardiovascular disease (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 1.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17-2.83 and sHR 1.40; 95% CI 1.06-1.84), respectively, and among those with lower oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO2/FiO2) ratio at HFNC and NIPPV initiation (sHR, 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.54, and sHR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21-0.55, respectively).
Conclusions A significant proportion of patients receiving non-invasive respiratory modalities for COVID-19 AHRF achieved successful discharge without requiring ETI, with lower success rates among those with cardiovascular disease or more severe hypoxemia. The role of non-invasive respiratory modalities in COVID-19 related AHRF requires further consideration.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
None
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board (IRB-20-03613).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest: None
JGW, BP, SP, BL and SB take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the analyses. SB, JGW and BP conceived the original idea and designed the study. JGW, CG, MT, PT, EY, DH, EE, LN, DT, KC, and SB contributed to the data collection. SP, BL and BP performed the statistical analyses. JGW, BP, SP, BL, NG, KSM, SD, AD, CP, and SB contributed to data interpretation. JGW, BL, and SB drafted the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript for intellectual content and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding source: None
Data Availability
Deidentified data will be made publicly available.
