Effect of noninvasive respiratory strategies in COVID-19 :- Medznat
EN | RU
EN | RU

Help Support

Back

Effect of noninvasive respiratory strategies in COVID-19 people

COVID-19 COVID-19
COVID-19 COVID-19

This adaptive, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial was carried out to explore if either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), compared with conventional oxygen therapy leads to improvement in clinical outcomes in hospitalized adults suffering from coronavirus disease.

See All

Key take away

In people having acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and coronavirus disease, an initial approach of continuous positive airway pressure considerably decreased the risk of death or tracheal intubation in comparison with conventional oxygen therapy.

Background

This adaptive, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial was carried out to explore if either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), compared with conventional oxygen therapy leads to improvement in clinical outcomes in hospitalized adults suffering from coronavirus disease.

Method

In Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy–Respiratory Support (RECOVERY-RS), a total of 1273 people infected with coronavirus disease were recruited. Participants were randomly allocated to get HFNO (n = 418), CPAP (n = 380), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). The composite of tracheal intubation or death within thirty days was the major endpoint ascertained.

Result

Out of 1273 randomized people (mean age, 57.4 years; 66% men), the major endpoint data were available for 1260. The crossover between interventions took place in 17.1% of people (23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, 15.3% in the CPAP group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or death within thirty days was considerably reduced with CPAP (36.3%; 137/377 people) when compared to the conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158/356 people) (absolute difference, -8%).

However, no profound difference was noted between an initial strategy of HFNO (44.3%; 184/415 people) vs. conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166/368 people) (absolute difference, -1%). Side effects were reported to occur in 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy arm, 34.2% (130/380) of people in the CPAP arm, and 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO arm.

Conclusion

Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, HFNO appears to be beneficial to decrease the composite outcome of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. in people suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Source:

JAMA

Article:

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial

Authors:

Gavin D Perkins et al.

Comments (0)

You want to delete this comment? Please mention comment Invalid Text Content Text Content cannot me more than 1000 Something Went Wrong Cancel Confirm Confirm Delete Hide Replies View Replies View Replies en ru
Try: