COVID-19: High-Flow Versus Low-Flow Oxygen Therapy - European Medical Journal

COVID-19: High-Flow Versus Low-Flow Oxygen Therapy

2 Mins

SEVERE acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has taken over hospital wards for almost 2 years. This contagious respiratory illness varies in severity and affects groups of individuals differently. Up to 20% of elderly patients require ventilatory support and many vulnerable patients with a COVID-19 infection have difficulty breathing. Previous results from studies have shown patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure receiving high-flow oxygen therapy via nasal cannula are less likely to need intubation. However, the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 has not been extensively studied. 

Scientists conducted a randomised, open-label study between August 2020 and January 2021, involving three different centres. Patients with severe COVID-19, with an average age of 60 years, were recruited to take part. For this study, 109 patients were randomised to receive high-flow oxygen therapy, and 111 patients were randomised to conventional therapy. Participants all had baseline respiratory distress and had a ratio lower than 200 for the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspired oxygen.  

From this cohort, 51 patients from the low-flow group required intubation, whereas only 34 patients required intubation in the high-flow group. Patients in the latter group had a significantly shorter recovery time (11 days) in comparison to the conventional group (14 days). Additionally, the rates of bacteraemia and pneumonia were lower in the high-flow group than the low-flow group. Notably, the key finding showed patients with severe COVID-19 were significantly less likely to need mechanical ventilation when given high-flow therapy in comparison to conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. 

Other secondary outcomes that were measured in this study include risk of intubation and median ventilator-free days. The results showed that for both outcomes, high-flow had the better outcome, with more ventilator-free days and reduced risk of intubation. Importantly, there was no significant difference between high-flow versus low-flow regarding hazard ratio for death.  

In conclusion, this novel research highlights the benefits of high-flow therapy over conventional therapy. The researchers shared why this was important: “Avoiding systematic intubation in COVID-19 could prevent complications related to invasive mechanical ventilation, sedation, delirium, and neuromuscular paralysis.” On the other hand, the researchers are aware of the small sample size being a limitation, as well as the use of only three centres. Future work could involve conducting this study on a larger scale.  

Please rate the quality of this content

As you found this content interesting...

Follow us on social media!

We are sorry that this content was not interesting for you!

Let us improve this content!

Tell us how we can improve this content?

Keep your finger on the pulse

Join Now

Elevating the Quality of Healthcare Globally