File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: High flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation for patients with COVID-19

TitleHigh flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation for patients with COVID-19
Authors
Issue Date27-Oct-2023
PublisherEuropean Respiratory Society
Citation
European Respiratory Journal, 2023, v. 62 How to Cite?
Abstract

Background: We examined whether SARS-COV-2 virus RNA could be detected in air and environmental samples in the hospital isolation rooms in patients who received a) High flow nasal cannula (HFNC), b) non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and c) conventional oxygen therapy (COT) via nasal cannula for respiratory failure.

Method: A field test at the Prince of Wales hospital isolation room with 12 air changes/hr on patients with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR with nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and throat swabs who required a) HFNC up to 60L/min (n=6), b) NIV (n=6), and c) COT up to 5L/min of oxygen (n=14). Three air samplers were placed around each patient and sampled air for at least 2 hours continuously. Surface samples were collected from all available surfaces after air sampling for 16 patients.

Results: Altogether 3/63, 1/54, and 4/150 air samples were positive from patients receiving HFNC, NIV, and COT, p=0.614, with mean(SD) RT-PCR cycle threshold(CT) values of 36.91(0.85), 38.53, and 37.74(0.71), respectively, p=0.234. In contrast, 3/44, 14/72, and 8/59 environmental samples were positive in patients receiving HFNC, NIV, and COT, p=0.166, with CT values 35.96 (0.96), 36.47 (2.34), and 35.61 (2.53), respectively, p=0.699. Lower respiratory specimen CT values on the sampling day were associated with positive air samples [OR 0.83 (95%CI 0.70 – 0.99), p=0.034].

Conclusion: HFNC and NIV did not increase the risk of air or environmental contamination compared to COT in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19. A high viral load on the day of air sampling was associated with positive air samples. (supported by HMRF#COVID190110)


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/339830
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 16.6
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 3.810
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHui, DSC-
dc.contributor.authorYung, L-
dc.contributor.authorChan, K-
dc.contributor.authorNg, S-
dc.contributor.authorLui, G-
dc.contributor.authorKo, F-
dc.contributor.authorChan, TO-
dc.contributor.authorYiu, K-
dc.contributor.authorChan, M-
dc.contributor.authorYen, HL-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T10:39:37Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T10:39:37Z-
dc.date.issued2023-10-27-
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Respiratory Journal, 2023, v. 62-
dc.identifier.issn0903-1936-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/339830-
dc.description.abstract<p><strong>Background:</strong> We examined whether SARS-COV-2 virus RNA could be detected in air and environmental samples in the hospital isolation rooms in patients who received a) High flow nasal cannula (HFNC), b) non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and c) conventional oxygen therapy (COT) via nasal cannula for respiratory failure.</p><p><strong>Method:</strong> A field test at the Prince of Wales hospital isolation room with 12 air changes/hr on patients with COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR with nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and throat swabs who required a) HFNC up to 60L/min (n=6), b) NIV (n=6), and c) COT up to 5L/min of oxygen (n=14). Three air samplers were placed around each patient and sampled air for at least 2 hours continuously. Surface samples were collected from all available surfaces after air sampling for 16 patients.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Altogether 3/63, 1/54, and 4/150 air samples were positive from patients receiving HFNC, NIV, and COT, p=0.614, with mean(SD) RT-PCR cycle threshold(CT) values of 36.91(0.85), 38.53, and 37.74(0.71), respectively, p=0.234. In contrast, 3/44, 14/72, and 8/59 environmental samples were positive in patients receiving HFNC, NIV, and COT, p=0.166, with CT values 35.96 (0.96), 36.47 (2.34), and 35.61 (2.53), respectively, p=0.699. Lower respiratory specimen CT values on the sampling day were associated with positive air samples [OR 0.83 (95%CI 0.70 – 0.99), p=0.034].</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> HFNC and NIV did not increase the risk of air or environmental contamination compared to COT in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19. A high viral load on the day of air sampling was associated with positive air samples. (supported by HMRF#COVID190110)</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherEuropean Respiratory Society-
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Respiratory Journal-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.titleHigh flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation for patients with COVID-19-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1183/13993003.congress-2023.PA4031-
dc.identifier.volume62-
dc.identifier.eissn1399-3003-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:001109120507157-
dc.publisher.placeSHEFFIELD-
dc.identifier.issnl0903-1936-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats