key: cord-0692669-rzhnnfq4
authors: van Steenkiste, Job; van Herwerden, Michael C.; Weller, Dolf; van den Bout, Christiaan J.; Ruiter, Rikje; den Hollander, Jan G.; el Moussaoui, Rachida; Verhoeven, Gert T.; van Noord, Charlotte.; van den Dorpel, Marinus A.
title: High-flow Nasal Cannula therapy: A feasible treatment for vulnerable elderly COVID-19 patients in the wards
date: 2021-05-25
journal: Heart Lung
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2021.04.008
sha: e7a153a25af70ece861b76bf2d5630db8d772e9d
doc_id: 692669
cord_uid: rzhnnfq4

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation is the treatment of choice in COVID-19 patients when hypoxemia persists, despite maximum conventional oxygen administration. Some frail patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure are deemed not eligible for invasive mechanical ventilation. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in the wards could serve as a rescue therapy in these frail patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included frail COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital between March 9(th) and May 1(st) 2020. HFNC therapy was started in the wards. The primary endpoint was the survival rate at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with a median age of 79.0 years (74.5-83.0) and a Clinical Frailty Score of 4 out of 9 (3-6) were included. Only 6% reported HFNC tolerability issues. The overall survival rate was 25% at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that, when preferred, HFNC in the wards could be a potential rescue therapy for respiratory failure in vulnerable COVID-19 patients.

compared to conventional oxygen therapy 2 . Furthermore a recent study in the ICU has proven HFNC not to be beneficial in terms of fatality rate but has shown to reduce tintubation rates 3 . These findings are limited to the ICU and data specifically on the use of HFNC in frail COVID-19 patients in a hospital ward setting is limited.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether HFNC therapy in the wards could serve as an appropriate rescue strategy for frail patients who failed on conventional oxygen administration but were considered not eligible for invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU. The primary outcome was survival at hospital discharge.

Subsequently, possible determinants of survival were studied.

This was retrospective cohort study in the Maasstad Medical Centre, the largest nonacademic teaching hospital in the Rotterdam area, the Netherlands. The study was approved by the Hospitals Medical Ethical Committee (application number W20.081).

COVID-19 patients aged 18 years and older who were hospitalised between 9 th of March and 1 st of May 2020 and experienced severe respiratory insufficiency but were not eligible for mechanical ventilation were included. Severe respiratory insufficiency was defined as persisting hypoxemia (e.g. saturation (SpO2) lower than 92%) despite administration of oxygen using a non-rebreating mask with a flow rate of 15 liter per minute. Patients were judged non-eligible for mechanical ventilation for several reasons, namely due to frailty, pre-existent comorbidities or because of their preference not to be mechanically ventilated. These patients were therefore treated with HFNC in the wards.

Decisions about the ventilation strategy were made in accordance with the patient and his or her relatives. Additionally, the patients were also discussed on a daily basis in a multidisciplinary team. This team includes Critical Care specialist, Internal Medicine specialist, Pulmonology and Palliative Care Specialists who collaborate together to achieve an unanimous decision. During these discussions functionality based on frailty scores, cognitive functioning and comorbidities were taken into account. When there was an unanimous agreement that a patient was too frail for mechanical ventilation, HFNC in the ward was considered as treatment. There was no disconcordance between the team and the patients about the treatment strategy. 

Demographic data such as age, gender, date of admission, days of hospital stay, body mass index (BMI) and survival were extracted. The following comorbidities were scored: hypertension (defined as the use of antihypertensive drugs), diabetes mellitus type 2 (defined as fasting plasma glucose level ≥ 6.1 mmol/L), asthma (bronchodilator use and spirometry with reversibility), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD GOLD classification), smoking (current or former), chronic kidney disease (eGFR <60ml/min/1,73 m2), malignancy (history of malignant neoplasm), occlusive peripheral arterial disease, a history of (non)-ischemic heart disease (ischemic defined as obstructive coronary artery disease), liver disease (radiological or pathological steatosis or cirrhosis) and the total number of comorbidities. Furthermore, medication administered at home (immunosuppressive drugs, ACE inhibitors and non-steroidal drugs) and during admission (cefuroxime and azithromycin) were reported.

The Clinical Frailty Score ranging from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill) and WHO performance status scoreranging from 1 (fully active) to 4 (completely disabled) were extracted from the medical record 4, 5 . Sequential organ failure assessment scores (SOFA) of the first 24 hours of admission were collected 6 . HFNC was seen as a form of mechanical ventilation in the SOFA score, subsequently resulting in a higher score in the domain Respiratory system.

The following clinical parameters were extracted from the medical record: pulse rate, blood pressure, temperature, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation. Patients were questioned about the presence and onset of the following symptoms: cough, dyspnea, weight loss, diarrhea and nausea.

Blood examinations including hemoglobin, leukocyte count with differential count, platelet count, d-dimer, alanine transaminase (ALAT), aspartate transaminase (ASAT), creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), troponin T and ferritin levels were collected. A chest X-ray was performed upon admission. When there was a high clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism a computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) was performed.

When deemed appropriate, HFNC was started at a flow rate of 60 liter per minute with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of 60% and a temperature of 37 degrees Celsius. The inspired oxygen fraction was titrated based on oxygen saturation (target SpO2 >92%) and respiratory rate (<25 per min). The flow, FiO2 and reasons for a possbile failure of treatment were extracted from the medical record. An increment of 10% in the FiO2 in the first 24 hours was scored separately. Hypoxemic respiratory failure on HFNC was defined as an SpO2 below 84% while receiving HFNC with a flow of 60 liter/min and a FiO2 of 100%.

Fever was defined as a tympanic temperature lower than 36 or greater than 38 degrees Celsius. Patients were considered infected if they were proven positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a nasopharyngeal PCR test.

To assess the severity of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) SpO2/FiO2 ratios were calculated at introduction of HFNC therapy, as it was impossible to collect pO2/FiO2 ratios for all patients. SpO2/FiO2 can be considered equally sensitive and specific as compared to PO2/FiO2 ratios 7 .

Baseline data is presented as median (IQR) or n (%). Differences between survivors and non-survivors were compared using Mann Whitney U test for continuous data and Fisher's exact test for categorical data. P-values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. All statistical analysis were performed using The R Project for Statistical Computing (version 4.0.3) 8 . Variables with clinical relevance and in between group differences were used in an univariate logistic regression model to calculate odds ratios in order to assess factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

No multivariate analysis were performed due to a risk of overfitting the model due to the small size of the present cohort.

A total of 297 COVID-19 patients were admitted to our hospital, of which a total of 69/297 (23.2%) were admitted to the ICU. The number of patients who received conventional oxygen therapy in the wards was 194 (65.3%) and a total of 34 (11.4%) patients were treated with HFNC in the wards. After excluding two patients that were still hospitalized during the analysis, 32 patients were included in the HFNC cohort (see figure 1 ). There were no patients with missing data. Baseline data is shown in Hypertension was the most frequent reported comorbidity (75%), the median comorbidities per patient was three (3) (4) . Patients reported a median of seven medications in use at home (5-10).

The overall Clinical Frailty score was four (3) (4) (5) (6) , categorized as vulnerable. The WHO performance score was two out of four (2) (3) (4) . SOFA scores within 24 hours of admission was 5 (4-6) for non-survivors and 3.5 (2-4.25) for survivors (p=0.06) ( Table   1) .

The median time in days between onset of symptoms and hospital admission was six (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) . Nearly all patients reported coughing (91%) and dyspnea (84%) and 34% of the patients had fever. All patients were tachypneic at presentation (Table 2) .

The overview of laboratory values at admission are presented in Table 3 . Most of the patients had bilateral pulmonary infiltrates (72%). Only 12 (38%) patients underwent a CT-scan, in five of these patients (16%) a pulmonary embolism was confirmed.

The median duration of admission before HFNC was introduced, was 2. Table 4) .

The overall survival rate in the HFNC cohort was 25%. Patients died because of a respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Median admission duration was 15. 

This observational study describes the clinical course of a cohort of vulnerable COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC as a rescue therapy in the hospital wards.

Overall survival at discharge was 25%, much lower than most reported survival rates in the clinical wards 1, 9, 10 . However, this cohort is a selection of frail patients with severe respiratory failure and high ARDS scores. Higher mortality rates are also reported in patients with multiple comorbidities admitted to Dutch, European and Northern-American intensive care units requiring invasive ventilation in the same age group [11] [12] [13] . Compared to a recent study by Calligaro et al 14 , success rate of HFNC was reported to be 47% and therefore significantly higher compared to our study, however, in latter study, patients were much younger and HFNC was used in an ICU setting. Using HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure in COVID-19 has previously been described and advocated 15 but data on frail patients is missing. This is the first study to specifically describe HFNC as a ward based rescue therapy for frail elderly who are deemed not eligible for mechanical ventilation and comparion with previously published studies is therefore difficult.

Success rate of HFNC seems to be dependent on the severity of pulmonary infection, with lower PaO2/FiO2 ratios resulting in a higher therapy failure. Wang et al. 16 described failure of HFNC in 63% of the patients, when PaO2/FiO2 was below 200 mmHg, comparable with our cohort. Vulnerability is associated with a worse clinical outcome including mortality and duration of hospitalization in non-COVID patients 17, 18 . In line with our results, increasing age 1, 9, 19 and hypertension 1, 19, 20 are independent risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 positive patients. The latter finding is paradoxical since hypertension in frail older people without COVID-19 is not associated with higher mortality 21 .

Furthermore, the small case series on HFNC in COVID-19 patients reported by Geng et al. 22 showed that HFNC therapy was patient friendly. Additionally, the medical staff reported that HFNC machines were easy to use while patients reported relatively high comfort breathing humidified and preheated air. The benefits of patients' tolerance combined with more reliable delivery of FiO2 due to dead space flushing, makes HFNC an excellent method of oxygen supply 23 Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP). 25 When HFNC was introduced in our hospital, concerns were raised about potential safety issues regarding to aerosol and viral spread with non-invasive mechanical ventilation like HFNC. The medical staff operating HFNC machines used Filtering Facepiece Particles-2 (FFP-2) masks, gowns, gloves and eye protection. Available literature did not reveal any evidence of increased risk infection while working with HFNC 26, 27 . Only one retrospective study is available describing the infection rates of SARS-CoV-1 in hospital workers operating HFNC machines. As compared to tracheal intubation (35%) and NIV (38%), HFNC seems to be the safest option with a lower risk of infection (8%) 28 . This study was not designed to address these potential safety hazards but based on the infection rates amongst hospital staff no concerns about using HFNC was reported which supports its deployment in future practice.

This study has several limitations. First, randomizing between HFNC and continuing standard oxygen supply, which is the only reasonable alternative active treatment in the wards, was considered to be ethically inappropriate since failure occurred on conventional oxygen supply. This means that no conclusions can be drawn about the benefit of HFNC therapy over conventional oxygen administration.

Second, we did not study the survival rate of these patients, when they would be admitted to the ICU for invasive mechanical ventilation instead of receiving HFNC treatment in the ward. Finally, due to our small study cohort, it was difficult to demonstrate predictors between survivors and non-survivors in the study population. This risk was minimized by including all of the frail COVID-19 patients that received HFNC in the wards. A large multicenter prospective study could further improve generalizability, confirm our results, and identify predictors for success or failure of HFNC therapy in frail patients in the wards. Furthermore, future research should focus on the safe application of HFNC in the wards to allow deployment on a larger scale, for example during future pandemics.

This study suggests that in future practice, when deemed appropriate, HFNC in the wards could be a potential rescue therapy for respiratory failure in vulnerable COVID-19 patients and can be deployed both safely and satisfactorily for staff and patients.

This study was approved by the Hospitals Medical Ethical Committee (Medical Research Ethics Committees United, reference L2019023) , application number W20.081.

The datasets that were used and/or analysed during the current study, are available from the corresponding author by a reasonable request.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

JS and MvH invented the study and were responsible for the integrity of the database. All authors were responsible for the treatment of patients, collecting clinical and additional data and for writing the manuscript. 

Predictors of mortality for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2: a prospective cohort study

Global Current Practices of Ventilatory Support Management in COVID-19 Patients: An International Survey

High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Critically III Patients with Severe COVID-19

Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people

Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on "sepsis-related problems" of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Comparison of the spo2/fio2 ratio and the pao2/fio2 ratio in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome

R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 treated in Hubei (epicenter) and outside Hubei (non-epicenter): A Nationwide Analysis of China

COVID-19 in Dutch Intensive Care Units; Patient characteristics and outcomes compared with pneumonia patients in the ICU from

Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes of 1591 Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region

ICU and Ventilator Mortality Among Critically Ill Adults With Coronavirus Disease

The utility of highflow nasal oxygen for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a resource-constrained setting: A multi-centre prospective observational study. EClinicalMedicine

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update

The experience of high-flow nasal cannula in hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in two hospitals of Chongqing

The association of clinical frailty with outcomes of patients reviewed by rapid response teams: an international prospective observational cohort study

Frailty and Subsequent Disability and Mortality among Patients with Critical Illness

Characteristics, treatment, outcomes and cause of death of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS in

COVID-19 pandemic -A focused review for clinicians

Is the association between blood pressure and mortality in older adults different with frailty? A systematic review and meta-analysis

High flow nasal cannula is a good treatment option for COVID-19

High-flow nasal oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation for hypoxemic respiratory failure: Do we know enough?

Management of COVID-19 Respiratory Distress

High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections to healthcare workers: a systematic review

The impact of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on coughing distance: implications on its use during the novel coronavirus disease outbreak

We thank Geeke van Waverijn for data extraction and preparation. We thank Evelien Oostdijk and Rob Zwinkels for the critical reading of the manuscript.