Utility of High Flow Nasal Cannula during Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COVID-19 Patients in Acute Respiratory Failure

Applied Sciences

Giustino Parruti¹  Giorgia Rapacchiale¹  Domenico Pietrantonio¹  Marzia Damiani²  Carlo D’Aurizio²  Giorgia Patrizio²  Vitalma Liotti²  Teresa Paolucci³  Giancarlo Graziani⁴  Antonella Spacone⁵ 

[1] Infectious Disease Unit, Pescara General Hospital, 66020 Pescara, Italy;Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Unit, Pescara General Hospital, 66020 Pescara, Italy;Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Oral, Medical and Biotechnological Sciences (DSMOB), University G. D’Annunzio of Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy;Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Santo Spirito Hospital, 00193 Rome, Italy;Pulmonary Medicine Unit, Pescara General Hospital, 66020 Pescara, Italy;

关键词: COVID-19;    rehabilitation;    pulmonary;    exercise;   

DOI  :  10.3390/app12094637

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has often been used in the treatment of acute respiratory failure during pulmonary rehabilitation setting. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the utility of HCFN during the early rehabilitation in COVID-19 pneumonia. Twenty-two patients (10 males and 12 females, mean age 64.5 ± 5.9 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia were considered. Medical data and rehabilitative scales were used to evaluate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 < 300), treated with HFNC three times during evaluation. Overall clinical outcomes from the evaluation of the synergy between HFNC strategy and rehabilitation were evaluated. A statistically significant improvement was observed at T2 (and of treatment) in 1 minute sit to stand test (1STST) (4 ± 3 vs. 17 ± 5, p < 0.05), short physical performance battery (SPPB) (4.3 ± 2.81 vs. 9.15 ± 2.39, p < 0.05), SpO2% post effort (93 ± 1.26 vs. 98 ± 1.01, p < 0.05), respiratory rate post effort (RR) (24 ± 3.91 vs. 20 ± 3.13, p < 0.05), heart rate (HR) (97 ± 11.9 vs. 87 ± 9.17, p < 0.05), P/F rate (235 ± 7.35 vs. 331 ± 10.91, p < 0.05), SpO2 (86 ± 4.54 vs. 97 ± 1.01 p < 0.05), RR (20 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 1.39, p < 0.05). Then, treated HFNC patients showed a good improvement in physical performance at T2 and a good compliance with treatments proved to be extremely useful in the control and reduction of dyspnea and fatigue symptoms.

【 授权许可】

Unknown