High-flow nasal oxygen in resource-constrained, non-intensive, high-care wards for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: Comparing outcomes of the first v. third waves at a tertiary centre in South Africa

Abstract

Background: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is an accepted treatment for severe COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF).

Objectives: To determine whether treatment outcomes at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, during the third COVID-19 wave would be affected by increased institutional experience and capacity for HNFO and more restrictive admission criteria for respiratory high-care wards and intensive care units.

Methods: We included consecutive patients with COVID-19-related AHRF treated with HFNO during the first and third COVID-19 waves. The primary endpoint was comparison of HFNO failure (composite of the need for intubation or death while on HFNO) between waves.

Results: A total of 744 patients were included: 343 in the first COVID-19 wave and 401 in the third. Patients treated with HFNO in the first wave were older (median (interquartile range) age 53 (46 - 61) years v. 47 (40 - 56) years; p<0.001), and had higher prevalences of diabetes (46.9% v. 36.9%; p=0.006), hypertension (51.0% v. 35.2%; p<0.001), obesity (33.5% v. 26.2%; p=0.029) and HIV infection (12.5% v. 5.5%; p<0.001). The partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio at HFNO initiation and the ratio of oxygen saturation/FiO₂ to respiratory rate within 6 hours (ROX-6 score) after HFNO commencement were lower in the first wave compared with the third (median 57.9 (47.3 - 74.3) mmHg v. 64.3 (51.2 - 79.0) mmHg; p=0.005 and 3.19 (2.37 - 3.77) v. 3.43 (2.93 - 4.00); p<0.001, respectively). The likelihood of HFNO failure (57.1% v. 59.6%; p=0.498) and mortality (46.9% v. 52.1%; p=0.159) did not differ significantly between the first and third waves.

Conclusion: Despite differences in patient characteristics, circulating viral variant and institutional experience with HFNO, treatment outcomes were very similar in the first and third COVID-19 waves. We conclude that once AHRF is established in COVID-19 pneumonia, the comorbidity profile and HFNO provider experience do not appear to affect outcome.

Study synopsis: What the study adds. This study adds to the body of evidence demonstrating the utility of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in avoiding invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with severe COVID-19 hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and shows that this utility remained consistent across different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.Implications of the study. In resource-constrained settings, HFNO is a feasible non-invasive alternative to IMV and can be employed with favourable and consistent outcomes outside traditional critical care wards. It also confirms that the degree of gas exchange abnormality, and not pre-existing patient-related factors, circulating wave variant or provider experience, is the main predictor of HFNO failure.

Keywords: COVID-19; high-flow; oxygen.

Fig. 1

Temporal relationship of the study sample (first wave v. third) to the national caseload.

Fig. 2

CONSORT diagram HFNO = high-flow nasal oxygen ICU = intensive care unit

Fig. 3

Proportions of patients with unsuccessful outcome from initiation of HFNO HFNO = high-flow nasal oxygen