(1) Background: Although Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) is effective in preventing mortality and endotracheal intubation in patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF) linked to a neuromuscular disorder, its efficacy can be affected by patient intolerance. A High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) appears to have a significant advantage over NIV as far as patient tolerance is concerned. The aim of the study was to investigate HFNC’s safety profile in a group of consecutive Neuromuscular Disease (NMD) patients intolerant to NIV who were admitted to an Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit (IRCU) for ARF. (2) Methods: The clinical course of nine NMD patients intolerant to NIV and switched to HFNC was reported. HFNC was provided during daytime hours and NIV during the night-time to the NIV-intolerant patients. HFNC was utilized 24 h a day in those patients who were intolerant of even nocturnal NIV. (3) Results: HFNC was simple to use and it was well tolerated by all of the patients. Three out of nine patients experienced treatment failure, consisting of the need for ETI and/or death during their IRCU stay. The remaining 6 had a favorable outcome. Treatment failure was linked to the utilization of HFNC 24 h a day. (4) Conclusion: HFNC during the daytime hours, together with nocturnal NIV, seems to be a safe therapeutic approach for NMD patients with ARF. A round-the-clock use of HFNC tends to be linked to a high likelihood of failure.

Background: Patients with COVID-19 may experience hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure (hARF) requiring O₂-therapy by High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNO). Although Prone Positioning (PP) may improve oxygenation in COVID-19 non-intubated patients, the results on its clinical efficacy are controversial. The present study aims to prospectively investigate whether PP may reduce the need for endotracheal intubation (ETI) in patients with COVID-19 receiving HFNO. Methods: All consecutive unselected adult patients with bilateral lung opacities on chest X-ray receiving HFNO after admission to a SARS-CoV-2 Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit (RICU) were considered eligible. Patients who successfully passed an initial PP trial (success group) underwent PP for periods ≥ 2 h twice a day, while receiving HFNO. The study’s primary endpoint was the intubation rate during the stay in the RICU. Results: Ninety-three patients were included in the study. PP was feasible and safe in 50 (54%) patients. Sixteen (17.2%) patients received ETI and 27 (29%) escalated respiratory support, resulting in a mortality rate of 9/93 (9.7%). The length of hospital stay was 18 (6–75) days. In 41/50 (80%) of subjects who passed the trial and underwent PP, its use was associated with clinical benefit and survival without escalation of therapy. Conclusions: PP is feasible and safe in over 50% of COVID-19 patients receiving HFNO for hARF. Randomized trials are required to confirm that PP has the potential to reduce intubation rate.

(1) Background: Because of a complicated intraoperative course and/or poor recovery of graft function, approximately 15% of lung transplant (LT) recipients require prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) and receive a tracheostomy. This prospective study aimed to assess the effect of High-Flow Tracheal Oxygen (HFTO) on tracheostomy tube removal in LT recipients receiving PMV postoperatively. (2) Methods: The clinical course of 14 LT recipients receiving HFTO was prospectively evaluated and compared to that of 13 comparable controls receiving conventional oxygen therapy (COT) via tracheostomy. The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients whose tracheostomy tube was removed at discharge from an Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit (IRCU). (3) Results: Setting up HFTO proved easy, and it was well tolerated by all the patients. The number of patients whose tracheostomy tube was removed was significantly higher in the HFOT group compared to the COT group [13/14 vs. 6/13 (p = 0.0128)]. (4) Conclusions: HFTO is an effective, safe therapy that facilitates tracheostomy tube removal in LT recipients after weaning from PMV.

The most common hereditary disorder in adults, α1-antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), is characterized by reduced plasma levels or the abnormal functioning of α1-antitrypsin (AAT), a major human blood serine protease inhibitor, which is encoded by the SERine Protein INhibitor-A1 (SERPINA1) gene and produced in the liver. Recently, it has been hypothesized that the geographic differences in COVID-19 infection and fatality rates may be partially explained by ethnic differences in SERPINA1 allele frequencies. In our review, we examined epidemiological data on the correlation between the distribution of AATD, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 mortality rates. Moreover, we described shared pathogenetic pathways that may provide a theoretical basis for our epidemiological findings. We also considered the potential use of AAT augmentation therapy in patients with COVID-19.

As the clinical outcome of octogenarian patients hospitalised for COVID-19 is very poor, here we assessed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients aged 80 year or older hospitalised for COVID-19 receiving non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS). A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was conducted in seven hospitals in Northern Italy. All patients aged ≥80 years with COVID-19 associated hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) undergoing NIRS between 24 February 2020, and 31 March 2021, were included. Out of 252 study participants, 156 (61.9%) and 163 (64.6%) died during hospital stay and within 90 days from hospital admission, respectively. In this case, 228 (90.5%) patients only received NIRS (NIRS group), while 24 (9.5%) were treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) after NIRS failure (NIRS+IMV group). In-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between NIRS and NIRS+IMV group (61.0% vs. 70.8%, respectively; p = 0.507), while survival probability at 90 days was significantly higher for NIRS compared to NIRS+IMV patients (0.379 vs. 0.147; p = 0.0025). The outcome of octogenarian patients with COVID-19 receiving NIRS is quite poor. Caution should be used when considering transition from NIRS to IMV after NIRS failure.

Forms of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) have been widely used to avoid endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, inappropriate prolongation of NIRS may delay endotracheal intubation and worsen patient outcomes. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess whether the CARE score, a chest X-ray score previously validated in COVID-19 patients, may predict the need for endotracheal intubation and escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients requiring NIRS. From December 2020 to May 2021, we included 142 patients receiving NIRS who had a first chest X-ray available at NIRS initiation and a second one after 48–72 h. In 94 (66%) patients, the level of respiratory support was increased, while endotracheal intubation was required in 83 (58%) patients. The CARE score at NIRS initiation was not predictive of the need for endotracheal intubation (odds ratio (OR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96–1.06) or escalation of treatment (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96–1.07). In conclusion, chest X-ray severity, as assessed by the CARE score, did not allow predicting endotracheal intubation or escalation of respiratory support in COVID-19 patients undergoing NIRS.