• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Ann Intensive Care. The experience of high-flow nasal cannula in hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in two hospital

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Ann Intensive Care. 2020 Mar 30;10(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00653-z.
The experience of high-flow nasal cannula in hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in two hospitals of Chongqing, China.


Wang K[SUP]1[/SUP], Zhao W[SUP]2[/SUP], Li J[SUP]3[/SUP], Shu W[SUP]4[/SUP], Duan J[SUP]5[/SUP].

Author information




Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The outbreak of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)-infected pneumonia (NCIP) is currently ongoing in China. Most of the critically ill patients received high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy. However, the experience of HFNC in this population is lacking.
METHODS:

We retrospectively screened 318 confirmed patients with NCIP in two hospitals of Chongqing, China, from January 1st to March 4th, 2020. Among them, 27 (8.4%) patients experienced severe acute respiratory failure including 17 patients (63%) treated with HFNC as first-line therapy, 9 patients (33%) treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and one patient (4%) treated with invasive ventilation. HFNC failure was defined by the need of NIV or intubation as rescue therapy.
RESULTS:

Of the 17 HFNC patients, 7 (41%) experienced HFNC failure. The HFNC failure rate was 0% (0/6) in patients with PaO[SUB]2[/SUB]/FiO[SUB]2[/SUB] > 200 mm Hg vs. 63% (7/11) in those with PaO[SUB]2[/SUB]/FiO[SUB]2[/SUB] ≤ 200 mm Hg (p = 0.04). Compared with baseline data, the respiratory rate significantly decreased after 1-2 h of HFNC in successful group [median 26 (IQR: 25-29) vs. 23 (22-25), p = 0.03]. However, it did not in the unsuccessful group. After initiation of NIV as rescue therapy among the 7 patients with HFNC failure, PaO[SUB]2[/SUB]/FiO[SUB]2[/SUB] significantly improved after 1-2 h of NIV [median 172 (150-208) mmHg vs. 114 (IQR: 79-130) under HFNC, p = 0.04]. However, two out of seven (29%) patients with NIV as rescue therapy ultimately received intubation. Among the 27 patients with severe acute respiratory failure, four patients were eventually intubated (15%).
CONCLUSIONS:

Our study indicated that HFNC was the most common ventilation support for patients with NCIP. Patients with lower PaO[SUB]2[/SUB]/FiO[SUB]2[/SUB] were more likely to experience HFNC failure.



KEYWORDS:

Coronavirus; High-flow nasal cannula; Pneumonia


PMID:32232685PMCID:PMC7104710DOI:10.1186/s13613-020-00653-z
Free PMC Article
 
Back
Top Bottom