Course: Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
CME Credits: 1.00
Released: 2021-12-07
Key Points
Question Does the use of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, reduce requirement of intubation and time to clinical improvement among patients with severe COVID-19?Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 220 patients with severe COVID-19, the rate of intubation and mechanical ventilation for those treated with high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula vs with conventional oxygen therapy was 34.3% vs 51.0%, respectively; the median time to clinical recovery was 11 days vs 14 days. Both comparisons were statistically significant.
Meaning Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with high-flow oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy reduced the likelihood of invasive mechanical ventilation and decreased time to clinical recovery.
Abstract
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:
Educational Objective
To identify the key insights or developments described in this article
View Full Course