Efficacy of High Flow Nasal Cannula in the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19 with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Results of Single Centre Study in Vietnam

Introduction: Most hospitalized patients required invasive or non-invasive ventilation and High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC). Therefore, this study was conducted to describe the characteristics of patients with severe Coronavirus Disease—2019 (COVID-19) treated by HFNC and its effectiveness for reducing the rate of intubated—mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Phu Chanh COVID-19 Department—Binh Duong General Hospital. Methods: It was a cross-sectional and descriptive study. All severe patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure eligible for the study were included. Patient characteristics, clinical symptoms, laboratory results, and treatment methods were collected for analysis; parameters and data related to HFNC treatment and follow-up were analysed. Results: 80 patients, aged of 49.7 ± 16.6 years, were treated with HFNC at admission in ICU. 14 patients had type 2 diabetes (17.5%), 3 patients had chronic respiratory disease (3.8%), 19 patients had high blood pressure (23.8%), and 5 patients with other comorbidities (7.4%). The majority of patients with severe COVID-19 had typical symptoms of COVID-19 such as shortness of breath (97.5%), intensive tired (81.3%), cough (73.7%), anosmia (48.3%), ageusia (41.3%), and fever (26.3%). The results of arterial blood gases demonstrated severe hypoxia under optimal conventional oxygen therapy (PaO₂ = 52.5 ± 17.4 mmHg). Respiratory rate, SpO2, PaO2 were significantly improved after using HFNC at 1st day, 3rd day and 7th day (P < 0.05; P < 0.05; P < 0.01; respectively). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) index was significantly increased after treating with HFNC vs before HFNC treatment (4.79 ± 1.86, 5.53 ± 2.39, and 7.41 ± 4.24 vs 2.97 ± 0.39; P < 0.05, P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). 54 (67.5%) patients were success with HFNC treatment and 26 (32.5%) patients with HFNC failure needed to treat with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) (13 patients; 50%) or intubated ventilation (13 patients; 50%). Conclusion: HFNC therapy could be considered as a useful and effective alternative treatment for patients with acute respiratory failure. HFNC might help to delay the intubated ventilation for patients with respiratory failure and to minimise the risk of invasive ventilation complications and mortality. However, it is crucial to closely monitor the evolution of patient's respiratory status and responsiveness of HFNC treatment to avoid unintended delay of intubation—mechanical ventilation. Trial Registration: An independent ethics committee approved the study (The Ethics Committee of Binh Duong General Hospital; No. HDDD-BVDK BINH DUONG 9.2021), which was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.