The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally and can cause a shortage of medical resources, in particular, mechanical ventilators. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) are frequently used for acute respiratory failure patients as alternatives to invasive mechanical ventilation. They are drawing attention because of a potential role to save mechanical ventilators. However, their effectiveness and risk of viral spread are unclear. The latest network meta-analysis of pre-COVID-19 trials reported that treatment with non-invasive oxygenation strategies was associated with improved survival when compared with conventional oxygen therapy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of clinical research on COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure has been reported. Several observational studies and small trials have suggested HFNC or NPPV as an alternative of standard oxygen therapy to manage COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure, provided that appropriate infection prevention is applied by health care workers to avoid risks of the virus transmission. Awake proning is an emerging strategy to optimise the management of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. However, the benefits of awake proning have yet to be assessed in properly designed clinical research. Although HFNC and NPPV are probably effective for acute respiratory failure, the safety data are mostly based on observational and experimental reports. As such, they should be implemented carefully if adequate personal protective equipment and negative pressure rooms.

No abstract

Background Unfractionated heparin sodium and nafamostat mesylate have long been used as anticoagulants in continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) where citrate is unavailable. This study aimed to determine whether heparin or nafamostat mesylate used during CKRT was associated with a longer filter life. Methods In this single-centre observational study, we included adult patients who required CKRT and used heparin or nafamostat mesylate for their first CKRT in the intensive care unit from September 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was filter life (from the start to the end of using the first filter). We used propensity score matching to adjust for the imbalance in patients’ characteristics and laboratory data at the start of CKRT and compared the outcomes between the two groups. We also performed restricted mean survival time analysis to compare the filter survival times. Results We included 286 patients, 157 patients on heparin and 129 patients on nafamostat mesylate. After propensity score matching, the mean filter life with heparin was 1.58 days (N = 91, Standard deviation [SD], 1.52) and with nafamostat mesylate was 1.06 days (N = 91, SD, 0.94, p = 0.006). Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors supported that heparin was associated with a longer filter life compared with nafamostat mesylate (regression coefficient, days, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.15, 0.89]). The between group difference of the restricted mean filter survival time in the matched cohort was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.07–0.50, p = 0.008). Conclusion Compared to nafamostat mesylate, heparin was associated with one-third to one-half a day longer filter life. Trial registration Not applicable.

No abstract