• Fernanda Dos Reis Ferreira, João Carlos Ferrari Correa, Eduardo Storopoli, Diego Restivo Faria, Karina Cassaro, Natália Feitosa da Hora, Raphael Ritti, Rafael Akira Becker, Simone Dal Corso, Ivan Peres Costa, and SampaioLuciana Maria MalosáLMMUniversidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, Brazil..
• Universidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
• Arch Med Sci. 2024 Jan 1; 20 (5): 153815461538-1546.

IntroductionThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator.Material And MethodsWe conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale.ResultsThe study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (p = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days).ConclusionsThis single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice.Copyright: © 2024 Termedia & Banach.

4 keywords...

hide…