There is no consensus concerning the best system of humidification during longterm noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV).In a technical pilot randomised crossover 12-month study, 16 patients with stable chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure received either heated humidification or heat and moisture exchanger. Compliance with long-term NIMV, airway symptoms, side-effects and number of severe acute pulmonary exacerbations requiring hospitalisation were recorded.Two patients died. Intention-to-treat statistical analysis was performed on 14 patients. No significant differences were observed in compliance with long-term NIMV, but 10 out of 14 patients decided to continue long-term NIMV with heated humidification at the end of the trial. The incidence of side-effects, except for dry throat (significantly more often present using heat and moisture exchanger), hospitalisations and pneumonia were not significantly different.In the present pilot study, the use heated humidification and heat and moisture exchanger showed similar tolerance and side-effects, but a higher number of patients decided to continue long-term noninvasive mechanical ventilation with heated humidification. Further larger studies are required in order to confirm these findings.

Background: Non-invasive respiratory support including high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) have been used to provide therapy in selected SARS-CoV-2 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). The value of the ROX index, a validated benchmark for outcomes in HFNO is unknown in CPAP. Objective: Can the ROX, a validated benchmark in HFNO be used for measuring treatment outcomes of CPAP in SARS-COV-2 ARF? Study Design and Methods: A non-randomised prospective protocol driven observational non-intensive care unit study in 130 SARS-COV-2 patients with ARF treated with non-invasive therapy from March 2020 to January 2021. The primary end point was failure of therapy (death or escalation). Secondary outcomes included time to failure including invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, the effect of escalation to CPAP from HFNO and the utility of ROX in ARF. Results: HFNO was better than CPAP in treating SARS-COV-2 ARF: 17/35 (48.5%) with successful HFNO therapy versus 24/95 (25.2%) with CPAP. The ROX index was more sensitive to outcomes with CPAP compared to HFNO and distinguished treatment failure early at 1, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours with the highest sensitivity at 24 hours (ROX-24h). The AUC for the ROX-24h was 0.77 for HFNO (P<0.0001), and 0.84 for CPAP (P<0.0001). The ROX-24h cut-points predicted failure with HFNO when < 3.9 (PPV 71%, NPV 75%) and CPAP < 4.3 (PPV 75%, NPV 91%). For success, ROX-24h cut-points of 7.6 for HFNO (PPV 85%, NPV 48%) and 6.1 for CPAP (PPV 88%, NPV 62%) were observed. Escalation from HFNO to CPAP was mostly not successful. Conclusion: ARF in SARS-COV-2 can be successfully managed by non-invasive support. The ROX index, validated for HFNO, provides a timely, low resource measure for both HFNO and CPAP avoiding delayed intubation. Trial registration: Study approved by NHS HRAREC (20/HRA/2344;ethics 283888)

No abstract

ObjectivesTo investigate whether calcium derangement was a specific feature of COVID-19 that distinguishes it from other infective pneumonias, and its association with disease severity.DesignA retrospective observational case–control study looking at serum calcium on adult patients with COVID-19, and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) or viral pneumonia (VP).SettingA district general hospital on the outskirts of London, UK.Participants506 patients with COVID-19, 95 patients with CAP and 152 patients with VP.Outcome measuresBaseline characteristics including hypocalcaemia in patients with COVID-19, CAP and VP were detailed. For patients with COVID-19, the impact of an abnormally low calcium level on the maximum level of hospital care, as a surrogate of COVID-19 severity, was evaluated. The primary outcome of maximal level of care was based on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale for COVID-19.ResultsHypocalcaemia was a specific and common clinical finding in patients with COVID-19 that distinguished it from other respiratory infections. Calcium levels were significantly lower in those with severe disease. Ordinal regression of risk estimates for categorised care levels showed that baseline hypocalcaemia was incrementally associated with OR of 2.33 (95% CI 1.5 to 3.61) for higher level of care, superior to other variables that have previously been shown to predict worse COVID-19 outcome. Serial calcium levels showed improvement by days 7–9 of admission, only in survivors of COVID-19.ConclusionHypocalcaemia is specific to COVID-19 and may help distinguish it from other infective pneumonias. Hypocalcaemia may independently predict severe disease and warrants detailed prognostic investigation. The fact that decreased serum calcium is observed at the time of clinical presentation in COVID-19, but not other infective pneumonias, suggests that its early derangement is pathophysiological and may influence the deleterious evolution of this disease.Trial registration number20/HRA/2344.

ObjectiveProspectively validate prognostication scores, SOARS and 4C Mortality Score, derived from the COVID-19 first wave, for mortality and safe early discharge in the evolving pandemic with SARS-CoV-2 variants (B.1.1.7 replacing D614) and healthcare responses altering patient demographic and mortality.DesignProtocol-based prospective observational cohort study.SettingSingle site PREDICT and multisite ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium) cohorts in UK COVID-19 second wave, October 2020 to January 2021.Participants1383 PREDICT and 20 595 ISARIC SARS-CoV-2 patients.Primary outcome measuresRelevance of SOARS and 4C Mortality Score determining in-hospital mortality and safe early discharge in the evolving UK COVID-19 second wave.Results1383 (median age 67 years, IQR 52–82; mortality 24.7%) PREDICT and 20 595 (mortality 19.4%) ISARIC patient cohorts showed SOARS had area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8 and 0.74, while 4C Mortality Score had AUC of 0.83 and 0.91 for hospital mortality, in the PREDICT and ISARIC cohorts respectively, therefore, effective in evaluating safe discharge and in-hospital mortality. 19.3% (231/1195, PREDICT cohort) and 16.7% (2550/14992, ISARIC cohort) with SOARS of 0–1 were candidates for safe discharge to a virtual hospital (VH) model. SOARS implementation in the VH pathway resulted in low readmission, 11.8% (27/229) and low mortality, 0.9% (2/229). Use to prevent admission is still suboptimal, as 8.1% in the PREDICT cohort and 9.5% in the ISARIC cohort were admitted despite SOARS score of 0–1.ConclusionsSOARS and 4C Mortality Score remains valid, transforming complex clinical presentations into tangible numbers, aiding objective decision making, despite SARS-CoV-2 variants and healthcare responses altering patient demographic and mortality. Both scores, easily implemented within urgent care pathways for safe early discharge, allocate hospital resources appropriately to the pandemic’s needs while enabling normal healthcare services resumption.