{"id":20780,"date":"2021-12-16T04:47:00","date_gmt":"2021-12-15T20:47:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/?p=20780"},"modified":"2021-12-16T06:03:47","modified_gmt":"2021-12-15T22:03:47","slug":"jama%e5%8f%91%e8%a1%a8%e8%ae%ba%e6%96%87-%e9%ab%98%e6%b5%81%e9%87%8f%e6%b0%a7%e7%96%97%e4%b8%8e%e4%bc%a0%e7%bb%9f%e6%b0%a7%e7%96%97%e5%af%b9%e9%87%8d%e7%97%87%e6%96%b0%e5%86%a0%e8%82%ba%e7%82%8e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/?p=20780","title":{"rendered":"[JAMA\u53d1\u8868\u8bba\u6587]: \u9ad8\u6d41\u91cf\u6c27\u7597\u4e0e\u4f20\u7edf\u6c27\u7597\u5bf9\u91cd\u75c7\u65b0\u51a0\u80ba\u708e\u60a3\u8005\u6709\u521b\u673a\u68b0\u901a\u6c14\u53ca\u4e34\u5e8a\u5eb7\u590d\u7684\u5f71\u54cd"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Original Investigation&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Gustavo A.\u00a0Ospina-Tasc\u00f3n,\u00a0Luis Eduardo\u00a0Calder\u00f3n-Tapia,\u00a0Alberto F.\u00a0Garc\u00eda,\u00a0et al<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>JAMA.\u00a0<\/em>2021;326(21):2161-2171. doi:10.1001\/jama.2021.20714<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Abstract<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Importance<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Objective<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Design, Setting, and Participants<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Interventions<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n\u2009=\u2009109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n\u2009=\u2009111).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Main Outcomes and Measures<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;The co\u2013primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Results<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n\u2009=\u200965 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96;&nbsp;<em>P<\/em>\u2009=\u2009.03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92;&nbsp;<em>P<\/em>\u2009=\u2009.047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Conclusions and Relevance<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Trial Registration<\/strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/clinicaltrials.gov\/ct2\/show\/NCT04609462\">NCT04609462<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Original Investigation&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;2021  [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[32,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20780"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=20780"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20780\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20781,"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20780\/revisions\/20781"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=20780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=20780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/csccm.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=20780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}