Comparison of Non-invasive Oxygenation Strategies in Patients Admitted for Covid-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is the main clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) infected patients admitted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). During the first phase of the outbreak (between February and May 2020), the use of invasive Mechanical Ventilation (MV) was largely required with 63% of ICU patients intubated in the first 24 hours after admission and up to 80% of patients during the overall ICU stay. Mortality was especially higher when using MV in the first 24 hours. In contrast, the use of non-invasive oxygenation strategies in the first 24 hours was only 19% for High Flow Nasal Cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and 6% for Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV). Several non-invasive oxygenation strategies were proposed in order to delay or avoid MV in ICU patients suffering from Covid-19 ARDS. The use of HFNC became the recommended oxygenation strategy, based in particular on publications prior to the outbreak. The use of NIV or Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) combined with HFNC have also been proposed. Although these non-invasive oxygenation strategies seem widely used in the second phase of the outbreak, they have not yet confirmed their clinical impact on MV requirement and patient's outcome. Moreover, no comparison has been made between these different non-invasive oxygenation strategies. The aim of this study is to compare different non-invasive oxygenation strategies (HFNC, NIV, CPAP) on MV requirement and outcome in ICU patients treated for ARDS related to Covid-19.