IMPORTANCE: The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.
IMPORTANCE: The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.
Authors: Safiya Richardson; Jamie S Hirsch; Mangala Narasimhan; James M Crawford; Thomas McGinn; Karina W Davidson; Douglas P Barnaby; Lance B Becker; John D Chelico; Stuart L Cohen; Jennifer Cookingham; Kevin Coppa; Michael A Diefenbach; Andrew J Dominello; Joan Duer-Hefele; Louise Falzon; Jordan Gitlin; Negin Hajizadeh; Tiffany G Harvin; David A Hirschwerk; Eun Ji Kim; Zachary M Kozel; Lyndonna M Marrast; Jazmin N Mogavero; Gabrielle A Osorio; Michael Qiu; Theodoros P Zanos Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Giacomo Grasselli; Alberto Zangrillo; Alberto Zanella; Massimo Antonelli; Luca Cabrini; Antonio Castelli; Danilo Cereda; Antonio Coluccello; Giuseppe Foti; Roberto Fumagalli; Giorgio Iotti; Nicola Latronico; Luca Lorini; Stefano Merler; Giuseppe Natalini; Alessandra Piatti; Marco Vito Ranieri; Anna Mara Scandroglio; Enrico Storti; Maurizio Cecconi; Antonio Pesenti Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tommaso Mauri; Cecilia Turrini; Nilde Eronia; Giacomo Grasselli; Carlo Alberto Volta; Giacomo Bellani; Antonio Pesenti Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Alexandre Demoule; Antoine Vieillard Baron; Michael Darmon; Alexandra Beurton; Guillaume Géri; Guillaume Voiriot; Thibault Dupont; Lara Zafrani; Lola Girodias; Vincent Labbé; Martin Dres; Muriel Fartoukh; Elie Azoulay Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Gavin D Perkins; Chen Ji; Bronwen A Connolly; Keith Couper; Ranjit Lall; J Kenneth Baillie; Judy M Bradley; Paul Dark; Chirag Dave; Anthony De Soyza; Anna V Dennis; Anne Devrell; Sara Fairbairn; Hakim Ghani; Ellen A Gorman; Christopher A Green; Nicholas Hart; Siew Wan Hee; Zoe Kimbley; Shyam Madathil; Nicola McGowan; Benjamin Messer; Jay Naisbitt; Chloe Norman; Dhruv Parekh; Emma M Parkin; Jaimin Patel; Scott E Regan; Clare Ross; Anthony J Rostron; Mohammad Saim; Anita K Simonds; Emma Skilton; Nigel Stallard; Michael Steiner; Rama Vancheeswaran; Joyce Yeung; Daniel F McAuley Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Joshua M Riley; Patrick J Moeller; Albert G Crawford; Joseph W Schaefer; Dianna R Cheney-Peters; Chantel M Venkataraman; Chris J Li; Christa M Smaltz; Conor G Bradley; Crystal Y Lee; Danielle M Fitzpatrick; David B Ney; Dina S Zaret; Divya M Chalikonda; Joshua D Mairose; Kashyap Chauhan; Margaret V Szot; Robert B Jones; Rukaiya Bashir-Hamidu; Alan A Kubey Journal: Am J Med Sci Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 3.462
Authors: Luis F Reyes; Alirio Bastidas; Paula O Narváez; Daniela Parra-Tanoux; Yuli V Fuentes; Cristian C Serrano-Mayorga; Valentina Ortíz; Eder L Caceres; Gustavo Ospina-Tascon; Ana M Díaz; Manuel Jibaja; Magdalena Vera; Edwin Silva; Luis Antonio Gorordo-Delsol; Francesca Maraschin; Fabio Varón-Vega; Ricardo Buitrago; Marcela Poveda; Lina M Saucedo; Elisa Estenssoro; Guillermo Ortíz; Nicolás Nin; Luis E Calderón; Gina S Montaño; Aldair J Chaar; Fernanda García; Vanessa Ramírez; Fabricio Picoita; Cristian Peláez; Luis Unigarro; Gilberto Friedman; Laura Cucunubo; Alejandro Bruhn; Glenn Hernández; Ignacio Martin-Loeches Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.240