Title
Variation in Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation Among Patients With COVID-19
Date Issued
01 August 2022
Access level
open access
Resource Type
journal article
Author(s)
Garcia M.A.
Johnson S.W.
Sisson E.K.
Sheldrick C.R.
Kumar V.K.
Boman K.
Bolesta S.
Bansal V.
Bogojevic M.
Lal A.
Heavner S.
Cheruku S.R.
Lee D.
Anderson H.L.
Denson J.L.
Gajic O.
Kashyap R.
Walkey A.J.
Mayo Clinic
Publisher(s)
American Association for Respiratory Care
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio. RESULTS: Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4–4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/ NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.).
Start page
929
End page
938
Volume
67
Issue
8
Language
English
OCDE Knowledge area
Epidemiología
Sistema respiratorio
Subjects
Scopus EID
2-s2.0-85134809235
PubMed ID
Source
Respiratory Care
ISSN of the container
00201324
Sources of information:
Directorio de Producción Científica
Scopus