The COVID–19 pandemic led to local oxygen shortages worldwide. To gain a better understanding of oxygen consumption with different respiratory supportive therapies, we conducted an international multicenter observational study to determine the precise amount of oxygen consumption with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and with mechanical ventilation. A retrospective observational study was conducted in three intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands and Spain. Patients were classified as HFNO patients or ventilated patients, according to the mode of oxygen supplementation with which a patient started. The primary endpoint was actual oxygen consumption; secondary endpoints were hourly and total oxygen consumption during the first two full calendar days. Of 275 patients, 147 started with HFNO and 128 with mechanical ventilation. Actual oxygen use was 4.9-fold higher in patients who started with HFNO than in patients who started with ventilation (median 14.2 [8.4–18.4] versus 2.9 [1.8–4.1] L/minute; mean difference 5 11.3 [95% CI 11.0–11.6] L/minute; P, 0.01). Hourly and total oxygen consumption were 4.8-fold (P, 0.01) and 4.8-fold (P, 0.01) higher. Actual oxygen consumption, hourly oxygen consumption, and total oxygen consumption are substantially higher in patients that start with HFNO compared with patients that start with mechanical ventilation. This information may help hospitals and ICUs predicting oxygen needs during high-demand periods and could guide decisions regarding the source of distribution of medical oxygen.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is increasingly used in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. It is uncertain whether a broadened Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in which ARDS can be diagnosed in patients who are not receiving ventilation, results in similar groups of patients receiving HFNO as in patients receiving ventilation.MethodsWe applied a broadened definition of ARDS in a multicenter, observational study in adult critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), wherein the requirement for a minimal level of 5 cm H2O PEEP with ventilation is replaced by a minimal level of airflow rate with HFNO, and compared baseline characteristics and outcomes between patients receiving HFNO and patients receiving ventilation. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality. We also compared outcomes in risk for death groups using the PaO2/FiO2 cutoffs as used successfully in the original definition of ARDS. Secondary endpoints were hospital mortality; mortality on days 28 and 90; need for ventilation within 7 days in patients that started with HFNO; the number of days free from HFNO or ventilation; and ICU and hospital length of stay.ResultsOf 728 included patients, 229 patients started with HFNO and 499 patients with ventilation. All patients fulfilled the broadened Berlin definition of ARDS. Patients receiving HFNO had lower disease severity scores and lower PaO2/FiO2 than patients receiving ventilation. ICU mortality was lower in receiving HFNO (22.7 vs 35.6%; p = 0.001). Using PaO2/FiO2 cutoffs for mild, moderate and severe arterial hypoxemia created groups with an ICU mortality of 16.7%, 22.0%, and 23.5% (p = 0.906) versus 19.1%, 37.9% and 41.4% (p = 0.002), in patients receiving HFNO versus patients receiving ventilation, respectively.ConclusionsUsing a broadened definition of ARDS may facilitate an earlier diagnosis of ARDS in patients receiving HFNO; however, ARDS patients receiving HFNO and ARDS patients receiving ventilation have distinct baseline characteristics and mortality rates.Trial registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04719182).
MULTIFILE
Subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum are well-known complications of invasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We determined the incidences of air leaks that were visible on available chest images in a cohort of critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in a single-center cohort in the Netherlands. A total of 712 chest images from 154 patients were re-evaluated by a multidisciplinary team of independent assessors; there was a median of three (2–5) chest radiographs and a median of one (1–2) chest CT scans per patient. The incidences of subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothoraxes and pneumomediastinum present in 13 patients (8.4%) were 4.5%, 4.5%, and 3.9%. The median first day of the presence of an air leak was 18 (2–21) days after arrival in the ICU and 18 (9–22)days after the start of invasive ventilation. We conclude that the incidence of air leaks was high in this cohort of COVID-19 patients, but it was fairly comparable with what was previously reported in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the pre-COVID-19 era.
DOCUMENT
