Predictors of weaning from helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia

© The Author(s) 2021. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) offers a valid non-invasive respiratory support for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia [1]. CPAP treatment isn’t free from complications such as pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum, hemodynamic instability, or delirium and requires careful monitoring [1, 2]. Accordingly, timely CPAP removal appears desirable [1, 2]. Our aim was to identify weaning predictors and assess their performance in COVID-19 patients treated with helmet CPAP. A prospective, observational, cohort study was conducted in our high dependency respiratory unit including consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia that underwent a weaning trial from CPAP between March 2020 and February 2021 (training cohort). Patients’ readiness to undergo a weaning trial was judged by the treating physician. A weaning trial was the reduction in support to minimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP≈2 cmH2O, including antiviral filters) maintaining a FiO2 ≤ 60% [1, 2]. Absence of respiratory distress and SpO2 ≥ 94% in the subsequent 30 min lead to helmet removal and oxygen supplementation with FiO2 ≤ 60%. A weaning failure was the need to restore CPAP because of respiratory distress or SpO2 ≤ 94% in any moment beginning from the low PEEP trial and during the subsequent 12 h. Weaning predictors were assessed before reducing PEEP, and included: (1) ROX index (SpO2/FiO2/ respiratory rate (RR)) [3], (2) modified ROX index (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) to FiO2 ratio/RR—mROX) [3], (3) alveolar-arterial (A-a) O2 gradient, (4) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score [4]. Sensitivity and specificity for different thresholds and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for all indexes. The index that best performed in the training cohort was tested in a validation cohort of patients hospitalized in two general wards of our institution. Statistical significance was a p value ≤ 0.05. Analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics V.23.0 (Armonk, NY). The study (NCT04307459) was approved by the local ethical committee (17263/2020) and all patients gave written informed consent. Seventy-four patients formed the training cohort: 61 (82.5%) succeeded and 13 (17.5%) failed the weaning trial (Table 1). At weaning trial, patients that failed had higher SOFA score, A-a O2 and RR, while PaO2/FiO2, ROX and mROX were higher in patients that succeeded weaning (Table 1). The mROX index had the best AUROC (0.830) and the value that best discriminated weaning success from failure was 8.4 mmHg/bpm (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.77) (Fig. 1). This threshold was tested in the validation cohort (44 patients; median age 65, 82% males) of which 32 (72.7%) succeeded and 12 (27.3%) failed weaning. The two cohorts were comparable in terms of clinical characteristics and CPAP duration before weaning. AUROC for mROX in the validation cohort was 0.828, sensitivity and positive predictive value 0.88, specificity and negative predictive value 0.67. Patients with mROX ≥ 8.4 after 5 days of CPAP had twice the probability to be free from CPAP compared with patients with mROX < 8.4 (Fig. 1). Open Access

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) offers a valid non-invasive respiratory support for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia [1]. CPAP treatment isn't free from complications such as pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum, hemodynamic instability, or delirium and requires careful monitoring [1,2]. Accordingly, timely CPAP removal appears desirable [1,2]. Our aim was to identify weaning predictors and assess their performance in COVID-19 patients treated with helmet CPAP.
A prospective, observational, cohort study was conducted in our high dependency respiratory unit including consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia that underwent a weaning trial from CPAP between March 2020 and February 2021 (training cohort).
Patients' readiness to undergo a weaning trial was judged by the treating physician. A weaning trial was the reduction in support to minimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP≈2 cmH 2 O, including antiviral filters) maintaining a FiO 2 ≤ 60% [1,2]. Absence of respiratory distress and SpO 2 ≥ 94% in the subsequent 30 min lead to helmet removal and oxygen supplementation with FiO 2 ≤ 60%. A weaning failure was the need to restore CPAP because of respiratory distress or SpO2 ≤ 94% in any moment beginning from the low PEEP trial and during the subsequent 12 h.
Sensitivity and specificity for different thresholds and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for all indexes. The index that best performed in the training cohort was tested in a validation cohort of patients hospitalized in two general wards of our institution. Statistical significance was a p value ≤ 0.05. Analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics V.23.0 (Armonk, NY). The study (NCT04307459) was approved by the local ethical committee (17263/2020) and all patients gave written informed consent.
Seventy-four patients formed the training cohort: 61 (82.5%) succeeded and 13 (17.5%) failed the weaning trial (Table 1). At weaning trial, patients that failed had higher SOFA score, A-a O 2 and RR, while PaO 2 /FiO 2 , ROX and mROX were higher in patients that succeeded weaning ( Table 1). The mROX index had the best AUROC (0.830) and the value that best discriminated weaning success from failure was 8.4 mmHg/bpm (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.77) (Fig. 1). This threshold was tested in the validation cohort (44 patients; median age 65, 82% males) of which 32 (72.7%) succeeded and 12 (27.3%) failed weaning. The two cohorts were comparable in terms of clinical characteristics and CPAP duration before weaning. AUROC for mROX in the validation cohort was 0.828, sensitivity and positive predictive value 0.88, specificity and negative predictive value 0.67. Patients with mROX ≥ 8.4 after 5 days of CPAP had twice the probability to be free from CPAP compared with patients with mROX < 8.4 (Fig. 1). Our data demonstrated that the mROX index, combining non-invasive surrogates of respiratory distress (RR) and gas exchange efficiency (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ), was the best predictor of weaning success from CPAP. We observed a relatively low rate of weaning failure, suggesting that weaning attempts tend to be performed Table 1 Clinical characteristics at admission and at weaning trial in patients that succeeded and failed CPAP weaning Parametric and nonparametric quantitative variables are described with means (standard deviations, SD) and medians (interquartile ranges, IQR), respectively. Chisquared or Fisher exact test were used to compare qualitative variables, whereas Student t test or Mann-Whitney were used to compare quantitative variables with normal or non-normal distribution, respectively, in patients that failed or succeeded the weaning trial A-a O 2 gradient = alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient; BUN = blood urea nitrogen; CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure; CRP = C reactive protein (upper limit of normal 10 mg/L); FEU = fibrinogen equivalent units; GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale; LMWH = low molecular weight heparin; PaO 2 = arterial partial pressure of oxygen; PaCO 2 = arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide; ROX index = SpO 2 /FiO 2 /respiratory rate; mROX index = PaO 2 /FiO 2 /respiratory rate; SOFA = Sequential Organ Failure Assessment late, and reflecting the need for objective and sensitive indicators of weaning preparedness, as for invasive mechanical ventilation [5]. Some limitations need further exploration. First, these thresholds should be tested in randomized clinical trials and compared with standard of care. Second, predictors should be sequentially measured at different time-points during zero-PEEP, to assess their performance variability during the weaning trial and unassisted breathing [2,6].

Open Access
In conclusion, the mROX threshold of 8.4 mmHg/bpm appears a sensitive and robust predictor of weaning success from helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions
Ready to submit your research Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from: ? Choose BMC and benefit from: critically revised, and gave final approval of the final version of the manuscript. P.S. takes full responsibility of the accuracy and the integrity of the results presented.

Funding
The work was not funded.

Availability of data and materials
Individual patient data will be available, upon individual and specific request, to researchers whose proposed use of the data has been approved. Data will be made available request to: pierachille.santus@unimi.it. Data will be provided with investigator support, after approval and after signing a data access agreement. The use of individual patient data outside personal consultation will not be permitted.

Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04307459) was designed following the amended Declaration of Helsinki (2013), was approved by the local ethical committee (Comitato Etico Area I: 17263/2020) and all patients gave written informed consent.

Consent for publication
Not applicable.