Ward-delivered nasal high-flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation are safe for people with acute respiratory failure: a cohort study.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Internal Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2025-01-11 DOI:10.1111/imj.16624
Catherine Buchan, Yet Hong Khor, Rebecca Disler, Matthew T Naughton, Natasha Smallwood
{"title":"Ward-delivered nasal high-flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation are safe for people with acute respiratory failure: a cohort study.","authors":"Catherine Buchan, Yet Hong Khor, Rebecca Disler, Matthew T Naughton, Natasha Smallwood","doi":"10.1111/imj.16624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Ward-delivered non-invasive respiratory supports (NIRS) (conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV)), are often used to treat hospitalised patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) both in high acuity and general wards. This study aimed to describe the processes of care adopted and examine patient outcomes from a specialist, ward-delivered NIRS service caring for people with COVID-19 in general wards or in a respiratory care unit (RCU).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort study was undertaken including all consecutive patients admitted to a quaternary hospital with ARF secondary to COVID-19 and requiring ward-delivered NIRS between 28 February 2020 and 18 March 2022. NIRS use, processes of care and patient outcomes were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six hundred sixty-eight patients were included, with 61% male and a mean age of 64 years (interquartile range 48-79 years). All received COT. Fifty eight percent of patients required additional NIRS: HFNO (36.2%), CPAP (19.8%) and NIV (1.9%). Eighty-two percent of patients had oxygen saturation targets documented. After the implementation of the RCU, significantly more nurse consultant-led CPAP prescriptions were initiated (P = 0.004) and fewer patients required review by the ICU team (P = 0.001) or transfer to ICU (P = 0.050). Forty-nine patients died (7.3%), with most (62.8%) being discharged directly home.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights that ward-delivered NIRS is feasible and safe for people with COVID-19 and ARF. The combination of ward and RCU-delivered NIRS was particularly effective. Further research is required to determine the optimal models of respiratory care required for a broader range of patients and to understand how these should be implemented.</p>","PeriodicalId":13625,"journal":{"name":"Internal Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.16624","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Ward-delivered non-invasive respiratory supports (NIRS) (conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV)), are often used to treat hospitalised patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) both in high acuity and general wards. This study aimed to describe the processes of care adopted and examine patient outcomes from a specialist, ward-delivered NIRS service caring for people with COVID-19 in general wards or in a respiratory care unit (RCU).

Methods: A cohort study was undertaken including all consecutive patients admitted to a quaternary hospital with ARF secondary to COVID-19 and requiring ward-delivered NIRS between 28 February 2020 and 18 March 2022. NIRS use, processes of care and patient outcomes were examined.

Results: Six hundred sixty-eight patients were included, with 61% male and a mean age of 64 years (interquartile range 48-79 years). All received COT. Fifty eight percent of patients required additional NIRS: HFNO (36.2%), CPAP (19.8%) and NIV (1.9%). Eighty-two percent of patients had oxygen saturation targets documented. After the implementation of the RCU, significantly more nurse consultant-led CPAP prescriptions were initiated (P = 0.004) and fewer patients required review by the ICU team (P = 0.001) or transfer to ICU (P = 0.050). Forty-nine patients died (7.3%), with most (62.8%) being discharged directly home.

Conclusion: This study highlights that ward-delivered NIRS is feasible and safe for people with COVID-19 and ARF. The combination of ward and RCU-delivered NIRS was particularly effective. Further research is required to determine the optimal models of respiratory care required for a broader range of patients and to understand how these should be implemented.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项队列研究表明,病房输送的高流量鼻吸氧和无创通气对急性呼吸衰竭患者是安全的。
背景和目的:病房输送的无创呼吸支持(NIRS)(常规氧疗(COT)、高流量鼻吸氧(HFNO)、持续气道正压通气(CPAP)和无创通气(NIV))常用于治疗急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)住院患者,无论是在高锐病房还是普通病房。本研究旨在描述所采用的护理过程,并检查在普通病房或呼吸监护室(RCU)为COVID-19患者提供的专科病房NIRS服务的患者结果。方法:开展了一项队列研究,纳入了2020年2月28日至2022年3月18日期间在一家第四医院连续收治的所有继发于COVID-19的ARF患者。研究了近红外光谱的使用、护理过程和患者预后。结果:纳入668例患者,61%为男性,平均年龄64岁(四分位数间距48-79岁)。均接受COT治疗。58%的患者需要额外的NIRS: HFNO(36.2%)、CPAP(19.8%)和NIV(1.9%)。82%的患者有记录的血氧饱和度目标。实施RCU后,更多的患者开始使用护士顾问主导的CPAP处方(P = 0.004),更少的患者需要ICU小组复查(P = 0.001)或转移到ICU (P = 0.050)。死亡49例(7.3%),其中大多数(62.8%)直接出院回家。结论:本研究强调病房内NIRS对COVID-19和ARF患者是可行和安全的。病房和rcu联合使用NIRS特别有效。需要进一步的研究来确定更广泛的患者所需的呼吸护理的最佳模式,并了解这些应该如何实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Internal Medicine Journal
Internal Medicine Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
600
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Internal Medicine Journal is the official journal of the Adult Medicine Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Its purpose is to publish high-quality internationally competitive peer-reviewed original medical research, both laboratory and clinical, relating to the study and research of human disease. Papers will be considered from all areas of medical practice and science. The Journal also has a major role in continuing medical education and publishes review articles relevant to physician education.
期刊最新文献
'Many heads are better than one': a paradigm shift towards a multidisciplinary infective endocarditis management approach. A new era in myeloma: the advent of chimeric antigen receptor-T (CAR-T) cells and bispecific antibodies. Non-invasive ventilation in cystic fibrosis: the Australian experience over the past 24 years. Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors among Aboriginal people with type 2 diabetes in remote Northern Territory: 2012 to 2020. Better off alone? Artificial intelligence can demonstrate superior performance without clinician input.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1