This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
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.)
Footnotes
- Correspondence: Michael A Garcia MD, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord Street. Boston, MA 02118. E-mail: Michael.Garcia{at}bmc.org
Dr Gajic discloses relationships with the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute: Department of Defense: American Heart Association and Ambient Clinical Analytics, Dr Kashyap discloses relationships with the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute: Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Janssen Research and Development, and Ambient Clinical Analytics, Dr Walkey discloses relationships with the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, Boston Biomedical Innovation Center, and UpToDate. The other authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Supplementary material related to this paper is available at http://www.rcjournal.com.
- Copyright © 2022 by Daedalus Enterprises
Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$30.00
Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.
