Jean-Pierre Frat1,2,3, Jean-Pierre Quenot4,5,6, Julio Badie7, Rémi Coudroy1,2, Christophe Guitton8,9, Stephan Ehrmann10,11,3,12, Arnaud Gacouin13, Hamid Merdji14,15, Johann Auchabie16, Cédric Daubin17, Anne-Florence Dureau18, Laure Thibault19, Nicholas Sedillot20, Jean-Philippe Rigaud21, Alexandre Demoule22,23, Abdelhamid Fatah24, Nicolas Terzi25,26, Marine Simonin27, William Danjou28, Guillaume Carteaux29,30,31, Charlotte Guesdon32, Gaël Pradel33, Marie-Catherine Besse34, Jean Reignier35, François Beloncle36, Béatrice La Combe37, Gwénaël Prat38, Mai-Anh Nay39, Joe de Keizer40, Stéphanie Ragot40, Arnaud W Thille1,2. 1. CHU de Poitiers, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Poitiers, France. 2. INSERM, CIC-1402, ALIVE, Poitiers, France; Université de Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie de Poitiers, Poitiers, France. 3. CRICS-TriggerSEP F-CRIN Research Network. 4. CHU Dijon-Bourgogne, Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Dijon, France. 5. Equipe Lipness, Centre de Recherche INSERM UMR1231 et LabEx LipSTIC, Université de Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France. 6. INSERM, CIC 1432, Module Épidémiologie Clinique, Université de Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France. 7. Hopital Nord Franche-Comte, Montbeliard, France. 8. CH du Mans, Réanimation Médico-Chirurgicale, Le Mans, France. 9. Faculté de Santé, Université d'Angers, Angers, France. 10. CHRU Tours, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Tours, France. 11. CIC INSERM 1415, Université de Tours, Tours, France. 12. Centre d'étude des Pathologies Respiratoires, INSERM U1100, Université de Tours, Tours, France. 13. CHU de Rennes, Hôpital Pontchaillou, Service des Maladies Infectieuses et Réanimation Médicale, Rennes, France. 14. Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Strasbourg, France. 15. Université Strasbourg (UNISTRA), Faculté de Médecine, INSERM UMR 1260, Regenerative Nanomedecine, FMTS, Strasbourg, France. 16. CH de Cholet, Service de Réanimation Polyvalente, Cholet, France. 17. CHU de Caen, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Caen, France. 18. GHR Mulhouse Sud-Alsace, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Mulhouse, France. 19. Groupe Hospitalier Sud de la Réunion, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Saint Pierre, France. 20. CH de Bourg-en-Bresse, Service de Réanimation, Bourg-en-Bresse, France. 21. CH de Dieppe, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Dieppe, France. 22. AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire APHP-Sorbonne Université, site Pitié-Salpêtrière, Médecine Intensive et Réanimation (Département R3S) and Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. 23. INSERM, UMRS1158 Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et Clinique, Paris, France. 24. Groupement Hospitalier Nord-Dauphiné, Service de Réanimation, Bourgoin-Jallieu, France. 25. CHU Grenoble Alpes, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Grenoble, France. 26. INSERM, Université Grenoble-Alpes, U1042, HP2, Grenoble, France. 27. Hôpital Saint-Joseph Saint-Luc, Réanimation Polyvalente, Lyon, France. 28. CHU La Croix Rousse, Hospices civils de Lyon, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Lyon, France. 29. AP-HP, CHU Henri Mondor, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Créteil, France. 30. Université Paris Est Créteil, Faculté de Santé, Groupe de Recherche Clinique CARMAS, Créteil, France. 31. INSERM, Unité UMR 955, IMRB, Créteil, France. 32. CH de Pau, Réanimation polyvalente, Pau, France. 33. CH Henri Mondor d'Aurillac, Service de Réanimation, Aurillac, France. 34. CH de Bourges, Réanimation polyvalente, Bourges, France. 35. CHU de Nantes, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Nantes, France. 36. CHU d'Angers, Département de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation et Médecine Hyperbare, Angers, France. 37. Groupe Hospitalier Bretagne Sud, Service de Réanimation polyvalente, Lorient, France. 38. CHU de Brest, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Brest, France. 39. CHR d'Orléans, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Orléans, France. 40. INSERM, CIC-1402, Poitiers, France; Université de Poitiers, Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie de Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Abstract
Importance: The benefit of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (high-flow oxygen) in terms of intubation and mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is controversial. Objective: To determine whether the use of high-flow oxygen, compared with standard oxygen, could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted in intensive care units (ICUs). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial was conducted in 34 ICUs in France and included 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen equal to or below 200 mm Hg. It was an ancillary trial of the ongoing original SOHO randomized clinical trial, which was designed to include patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from all causes. Patients were enrolled from January to December 2021; final follow-up occurred on March 5, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (n = 357) or standard oxygen delivered through a nonrebreathing mask initially set at a 10-L/min minimum (n = 354). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at day 28. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients requiring intubation, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 90, mortality and length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. Results: Among the 782 randomized patients, 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; 214 women [30%]). The mortality rate at day 28 was 10% (36/357) with high-flow oxygen and 11% (40/354) with standard oxygen (absolute difference, -1.2% [95% CI, -5.8% to 3.4%]; P = .60). Of 13 prespecified secondary outcomes, 12 showed no significant difference including in length of stay and mortality in the ICU and in mortality up until day 90. The intubation rate was significantly lower with high-flow oxygen than with standard oxygen (45% [160/357] vs 53% [186/354]; absolute difference, -7.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -0.4%]; P = .04). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was not significantly different between groups (median, 28 [IQR, 11-28] vs 23 [IQR, 10-28] days; absolute difference, 0.5 days [95% CI, -7.7 to 9.1]; P = .07). The most common adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, occurring in 58% (93/160) in the high-flow oxygen group and 53% (99/186) in the standard oxygen group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, compared with standard oxygen therapy, did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04468126.
Importance: The benefit of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (high-flow oxygen) in terms of intubation and mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is controversial. Objective: To determine whether the use of high-flow oxygen, compared with standard oxygen, could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted in intensive care units (ICUs). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial was conducted in 34 ICUs in France and included 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen equal to or below 200 mm Hg. It was an ancillary trial of the ongoing original SOHO randomized clinical trial, which was designed to include patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from all causes. Patients were enrolled from January to December 2021; final follow-up occurred on March 5, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (n = 357) or standard oxygen delivered through a nonrebreathing mask initially set at a 10-L/min minimum (n = 354). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at day 28. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients requiring intubation, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 90, mortality and length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. Results: Among the 782 randomized patients, 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; 214 women [30%]). The mortality rate at day 28 was 10% (36/357) with high-flow oxygen and 11% (40/354) with standard oxygen (absolute difference, -1.2% [95% CI, -5.8% to 3.4%]; P = .60). Of 13 prespecified secondary outcomes, 12 showed no significant difference including in length of stay and mortality in the ICU and in mortality up until day 90. The intubation rate was significantly lower with high-flow oxygen than with standard oxygen (45% [160/357] vs 53% [186/354]; absolute difference, -7.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -0.4%]; P = .04). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was not significantly different between groups (median, 28 [IQR, 11-28] vs 23 [IQR, 10-28] days; absolute difference, 0.5 days [95% CI, -7.7 to 9.1]; P = .07). The most common adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, occurring in 58% (93/160) in the high-flow oxygen group and 53% (99/186) in the standard oxygen group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, compared with standard oxygen therapy, did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04468126.
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: 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: Domenico Luca Grieco; Luca S Menga; Melania Cesarano; Tommaso Rosà; Savino Spadaro; Maria Maddalena Bitondo; Jonathan Montomoli; Giulia Falò; Tommaso Tonetti; Salvatore L Cutuli; Gabriele Pintaudi; Eloisa S Tanzarella; Edoardo Piervincenzi; Filippo Bongiovanni; Antonio M Dell'Anna; Luca Delle Cese; Cecilia Berardi; Simone Carelli; Maria Grazia Bocci; Luca Montini; Giuseppe Bello; Daniele Natalini; Gennaro De Pascale; Matteo Velardo; Carlo Alberto Volta; V Marco Ranieri; Giorgio Conti; Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore; Massimo Antonelli Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nazrul Islam; Vladimir M Shkolnikov; Rolando J Acosta; Ilya Klimkin; Ichiro Kawachi; Rafael A Irizarry; Gianfranco Alicandro; Kamlesh Khunti; Tom Yates; Dmitri A Jdanov; Martin White; Sarah Lewington; Ben Lacey Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-05-19
Authors: Nicolas Bonnet; Olivier Martin; Marouane Boubaya; Vincent Levy; Nathan Ebstein; Philippe Karoubi; Yacine Tandjaoui-Lambiotte; Guillaume Van Der Meersch; Johanna Oziel; Marie Soulie; Mohamed Ghalayini; Anais Winchenne; Jean Ralph Zahar; Passem Ahmed; Stéphane Gaudry; Yves Cohen Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2021-02-27 Impact factor: 6.925