Use of HFNC in COVID-19 patients in non-ICU setting: Experience from a tertiary referral centre of north India and a systematic review of literature

  1. Anivita Aggarwal
  2. Umang Arora
  3. Ankit Mittal
  4. Arunima Aggarwal
  5. Komal Singh
  6. Animesh Ray
  7. Manish Soneja
  8. Pankaj Jorwal
  9. Neeraj Nischal
  10. Akhil Kant Singh
  11. Puneet Khanna
  12. Naveet Wig
  13. Anjan Trikha

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

The rapid surge of cases and insufficient numbers of intensive care unit (ICU) beds have forced hospitals to utilise their general wards for administration of non-invasive respiratory support including HFNC(High Flow Nasal Cannula) in severe COVID-19. However, there is a dearth of data on the success of such advanced levels of care outside the ICU setting. Therefore, we conducted an observational study at our centre, and systematically reviewed the literature, to assess the success of HFNC in managing severe COVID-19 cases outside the ICU.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary referral centre where records of all adult COVID-19 patients (≥18 years) requiring HFNC support were between September and December 2020 were analysed. HFNC support was adjusted to target SpO2 ≥90% and respiratory rate ≤30 per min. The clinical, demographic, laboratory, and treatment details of these patients were retrieved from the medical records and entered in pre-designed proforma. Outcome parameters included duration of oxygen during hospital stay, duration of HFNC therapy, length of hospital stay and death or discharge. HFNC success was denoted when a patient did not require escalation of therapy to NIV or invasive mechanical ventilation, or shifting to the ICU, and was eventually discharged from the hospital without oxygen therapy; otherwise, the outcome was denoted as HFNC failure. Systematic review was also performed on the available literature on the experience with HFNC in COVID-19 patients outside of ICU settings using the MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase databases. Statistical analyses were performed with the use of STATA software, version 12, OpenMeta[Analyst], and visualization of the risk of bias plot using robvis.

Results

Thirty-one patients receiving HFNC in the ward setting, had a median age of 62 (50 – 69) years including 24 (77%) males. Twenty-one (68%) patients successfully tolerated HFNC and were subsequently discharged from the wards, while 10 (32%) patients had to be shifted to ICU for non-invasive or invasive ventilation, implying HFNC failure. Patients with HFNC failure had higher median D-dimer values at baseline (2.2 mcg/ml vs 0.6 mcg/ml, p=0.001) and lower initial SpO2 on room air at admission (70% vs 80%, p=0.026) as compared to those in whom HFNC was successful .A cut-off value of 1.7 mg/L carried a high specificity (90.5%) and moderate sensitivity (80%) for the occurrence of HFNC failure. Radiographic severity scoring as per the BRIXIA score was comparable in both the groups(11 vs 10.5 out of 18, p=0.78). After screening 98 articles, total of seven studies were included for synthesis in the systematic review with a total of 820 patients, with mean age of the studies ranging from 44 to 83 years and including 62% males. After excluding 2 studies from the analysis, the pooled rates of HFNC failure were 36.3% (95% CI 31.1% – 41.5%) with no significant heterogeneity ( I 2 =0%, p=0.55).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated successful outcomes with use of HFNC in an outside of ICU setting among two-thirds of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Lower room air SpO2 and higher D-dimer levels at presentation were associated with failure of HFNC therapy leading to ICU transfer for endotracheal intubation or death. Also, the results from the systematic review demonstrated similar rates of successful outcomes concluding that HFNC is a viable option with failure rates similar to those of ICU settings in such patients.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.23.21259045: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We also systematically reviewed the available literature on the experience with HFNC in COVID-19 patients outside of ICU settings using the MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase databases.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Statistical analyses were performed with the use of STATA software, version 12, OpenMeta[Analyst], and visualization of the risk of bias plot using robvis as depicted in figure 3 and table 4.[7][8]
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.23.21259045 on medRxiv