The Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

8Citations
Citations of this article
58Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: High-flow nasal cannula is widely used in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019, yet data regarding its effectiveness is lacking. More evidence is needed to guide patient selection, timing of high-flow nasal cannula initiation, and resource allocation. We aimed to assess time to discharge and time to death in severe coronavirus disease 2019 in patients treated with high-flow nasal cannula compared with matched controls. We also evaluated the ability of the respiratory rate-oxygenation ratio to predict progression to invasive mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Time-dependent propensity score matching was used to create pairs of individuals who were then analyzed in a Cox proportional-hazards regression model to estimate high-flow nasal cannula's effect on time to discharge and time to death. A secondary analysis excluded high-flow nasal cannula patients intubated within 6 hours of admission. A Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to assess risk of invasive mechanical ventilation among high-flow nasal cannula patients stratified by respiratory rate-oxygenation. SETTING: The five hospitals of the Johns Hopkins Health System. PATIENTS: All patients who were admitted with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 were eligible for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: High-flow nasal cannula was associated with longer median time to discharge: 10.6 days (interquartile range, 7.1-15.8 d) versus 7.8 days (interquartile range, 4.9-12.1 d). Respiratory rate-oxygenation index performed poorly in predicting ventilation or death. In the primary analysis, there was no significant association between high-flow nasal cannula and hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57-1.09). Excluding patients intubated within 6 hours of admission, high-flow nasal cannula was associated with reduced hazard of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Among unselected patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia, high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in hazard of death. However, in patients not mechanically ventilated within 6 hours of admission, high-flow nasal cannula was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of death.

References Powered by Scopus

The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure

8557Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries

3962Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The lasso method for variable selection in the cox model

3108Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

High-flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Performance of the ROX index in predicting high flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Impact of changing case definitions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization on pandemic metrics

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Burnim, M. S., Wang, K., Checkley, W., Nolley, E. P., Xu, Y., & Garibaldi, B. T. (2022). The Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Critical Care Medicine, 50(3), E253–E262. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005309

Readers over time

‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2506121824

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 13

72%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

11%

Researcher 2

11%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 12

57%

Nursing and Health Professions 4

19%

Engineering 3

14%

Environmental Science 2

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0