Subject Area


Document Type

Original Study


Objectives: To analyze the clinical data and outcomes of different non-invasive oxygen therapy modalities used for the treatment of type 1 respiratory failure associated with COVID 19 virus infection. Background: Despite the variety of oxygen delivery modes, there is still uncertainty regarding the benefit of HFNC as a non-invasive oxygen delivery method during the coronavirus pandemic. Methods: In 100 patients with ARF associated with COVID-19, We performed an observational prospective cohort study in which they divided into the NIV and HFNC groups. The primary outcome was treatment failure, characterized by switching to invasive mechanical ventilation or the other oxygen therapy modality (NIV to HFNC) or (HFNC to NIV). Results: There was no significant difference in the success rate between the groups (HFNC 36% vs. NIV 24%, P= 0.19). However, the incidence of intubation was significantly different between the groups (28% vs. 52%, P=0.001). After 28 days, the mortality rate was considerably lower in the HFNC group than that in the NIV group (44% vs. 64%, P=0.045). ARDS according to the PF ratio after 48 h was significantly less severe in the HFNC group than in the NIV group (P=0.026). There was significantly higher nursing care per day in the NIV group on most days (P