Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial
Journal of Intensive Care volume 11, Article number: 21 (2023)
Long-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure.
In this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6 months after the enrollment.
Among 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide < 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity < 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47–77] of predicted vs. 80% [71–88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53–70] vs. 80 [70–83], p = 0.01).
In patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6 months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients.
Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 2020
The need for respiratory support is the most frequent cause of admission to intensive care unit among patients with COVID-19. The optimal first-line approach for respiratory support in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated [2, 3].
In hypoxemic patients, high-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as the first-line intervention due to its effectiveness, accessibility and simplicity of use . Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with helmet interface and specific settings has been proposed as an alternative tool to manage patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Its putative benefits include the possibility of providing continuous treatments with good tolerability, improved oxygenation, and potential avoidance of lung injury progression [11, 12]. However, its use is limited to highly selected environments with expert personnel, due to the lack of conclusive evidence regarding its efficacy.
Recently, the first head-to-head randomized trial (HENIVOT) compared helmet NIV, eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen, versus high-flow oxygen alone as the first-line treatment of patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit . Results showed no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days from randomization, but a reduced need for endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation in the helmet group, suggesting a potential advantage to explore.
Long-term health consequences of COVID-19 have been widely described. These include impaired pulmonary function, physical health and neuropsychological sequelae [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome, avoidance of endotracheal intubation improves long-term outcome and quality of life [24, 25].
Limited evidence is available regarding the functional outcomes of patients who receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure [26, 27], and there are concerns about the possible risk of self-inflicted lung injury and pulmonary sequelae due to the effect of spontaneous breathing [28, 29]. To date, no study has ever compared helmet NIV with specific settings vs. high-flow nasal oxygen in terms of long-term outcomes.
In this pre-planned analysis of the HENIVOT trial, we compared the 6-month clinical status, respiratory function, and quality of life of intensive care unit survivors treated with helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen. We also assessed the effects of the need for endotracheal intubation on these outcomes.
Patients enrolled in the “HElmet NonInvasive Ventilation versus high-flow Oxygen Therapy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (HENIVOT)” were followed up 6 months after randomization. HENIVOT was an investigator-initiated, two-arm, open-label multicentre randomized trial conducted in 4 intensive care units between October and December 2020. The study was supported by the acute respiratory failure study group of the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Intensive Care Medicine (SIAARTI) and was approved by the ethics committee of all participating centres. All patients provided written informed consent for study participation and data analysis.
One hundred-nine patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to inhaled oxygen fraction equal to or below 200 mmHg) due to COVID-19 at intensive care unit were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive helmet NIV, eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (N = 54) or high-flow nasal oxygen alone (N = 55). The full study protocol and statistical analysis plan are available elsewhere .
Study design, setting, and participants
All patients discharged alive from hospital were contacted 6 months after enrolment to assess their clinical status, respiratory function, and quality of life. Follow-up visits were performed according to the study protocol from April 2021 to June 2021 in the Italian centers involved in the trial, which are equipped with post-acute outpatient services for individuals discharged from hospital after recovery from COVID-19.
Variables and data collection
The primary outcome of the study was the percentage of patients with any symptoms at the 6-month follow-up.
Follow-up visits consisted of a global medical assessment including medical history, physical examination, blood tests and pulmonary function test.
Patients were interviewed face-to-face with a set of questionnaires that measure physiological and psychological status, including: the modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC, a clinical tool to stratify dyspnea) , the EuroQoL five dimensions five levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire (an instrument to measure health-related quality of life) , the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS, a self-rated health record) , the Medical Outcomes Study 36 Items Short form (SF-36, a patient-report questionnaire on quality of life) [32, 33], the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorder (DMS-5) (PCL-5, that assesses the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder)  and a self-reported symptoms questionnaire (Additional file 4: Material, E-Appendix).
Venous blood samples were collected and analyzed to determine complete blood cell count (hemoglobin, platelet count, white blood cell count), hepatic function (total bilirubin and transaminases) and renal function (creatinine, blood urea nitrogen and estimated glomerular filtration rate).
Pulmonary function test consisted of global spirometry with diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) assessment and arterial blood gas analysis.
All data were recorded in an electronic database.
Categorical variables were summarized as absolute and percentage frequencies and continuous variables as median and interquartile range. Between-group comparisons were performed using Fisher’s or Chi-square test for categorical variables, Mann–Whitney test for ordinal variables or non-normal quantitative variables and t test for normally distributed quantitative variables.
To estimate the effect of endotracheal intubation on physical and psychological performance status at 6 months, we compared the study variables between patients who required endotracheal intubation and who did not require endotracheal intubation, independently from the assigned treatment.
Some patients had missing data for some outcomes: the exact number of patients with complete data for a determined group of variables is specified in the tables. Given that the data were missing at random, no imputation was performed. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. All statistical tests were two-tailed.
We performed a Random Forest analysis and the respective MDS plot with as independent variables the allocation treatment and the endotracheal intubation, to explore their effects on a number of outcomes (Additional file 1–2). The model was trained to optimize the number of trees.
Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS (IBM Corp. Released 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY), GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA, version 7.0.0 for Windows) and R software (Rstudio Team (2020). RStudio: integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, Version 2023.03.0 + 386).
Eighty-two of the 109 patients enrolled in the HENIVOT trial were discharged alive from the hospital and were contacted at 6 months; among these patients, 2 were deceased, 7 refused to participate and 2 were lost at follow-up. Of remaining 71, who successfully completed the follow-up, 35 received helmet NIV and 36 high-flow oxygen (Fig. 1). Table 1 shows the patient’s demographics.
Symptoms and physical performance test
There was no difference in the primary outcome: the majority of patients reported at least one symptom at the follow-up: 28 (90%) in the helmet group and 28 (85%) in the high-flow group (p = 0.71). Overall, the most common symptoms were dyspnea and fatigue, with a median mMRC, respectively, of 2 [IQR: 1–2] in the helmet group vs. 2 [IQR: 2–3] in the high-flow group (p = 0.25). Patients in the helmet group reported a significantly lower frequency of arthralgia, meant as joint pain or stiffness (16% vs. 55%, OR = 0.16 [95% CI 0.05–0.52], (p = 0.002). No significant difference between groups was found in the incidence of dyspnea, fatigue, dry cough, sore throat, rhinitis, smell and taste disorders and decreased visual acuity (Table 2).
Vital signs, laboratory tests and arterial blood gas were similar between the two groups and did not present significant abnormalities (Additional file 3: Table S1).
Pulmonary function parameters were impaired in the overall cohort, with no significant differences between groups (Fig. 2, Table 2, Additional file 3: Table S2). DLCO impairment was the most frequent abnormality: 78% [70–85] of the predicted value among patients treated with helmet and 76% [67–88] among those treated with high-flow nasal oxygen (p = 0.67).
Median distance at six minutes walking test was 490 m [IQR: 420–540] in the helmet group and 510 m [IQR: 438–540] in the high-flow group (p = 0.82), without significant differences in terms of dyspnea assessed by the BORG scale (4 [IQR: 2–6] vs. 3 [IQR: 3–5], respectively, p = 0.91). One (4%) patient in the helmet group vs. 4 (15%) in the high flow group were unable to walk the predicted distance (p = 0.18).
The 30-s chair stand test was successfully completed by all participants, with 23 cycles in 30 s [20–29] in the helmet group and 23 [19–25] in the high flow group (p = 0.65). (Additional file 3: Table S2).
Health-related quality-of-life assessment
The two groups had similar SF-36 scores in all domains; the most impaired domains were “role limitation due to physical health”, “general health” and “health change”, without differences between groups (all p > 0.05) (Fig. 3, Table 2).
Many patients reported decreased quality of life in the EQ-5D-5L, including pain (21 patients (58%) in the high-flow oxygen group vs. 19 (54%) vs. the helmet group, p = 0.81) and anxiety or depression (14 patients (39%) in the high-flow oxygen group vs. 12 (34%) in the helmet group, p = 0.81) (Fig. 3).
The EQ-VAS score was 70 [60–80] in the high-flow group vs. 78 [69–80] in the helmet group (p = 0.27). The median PCL-5, assessing post-traumatic stress disorder, did not differ significantly between the two groups (8 [2–17] vs. 11 [3–17], p = 0.71), and in the majority of the cohort it was far below the cutoff score of 33 that defines post-traumatic stress disorder.
Effect of endotracheal intubation on outcomes
We compared 17 patients who required endotracheal intubation (3 on Helmet NIV, 14 on HFNC) and 54 patients who did not (32 on Helmet NIV, 22 on HFNC). Besides the type of respiratory support, no other significant differences were found between patients who required endotracheal intubation vs. those who did not (Additional file 3: Table S3).
Patients who required endotracheal intubation, compared to those who did not, showed a higher incidence of fatigue (13 (76%) vs. 22 (47%), OR = 3.69 [95%CI 1.05–13.00], p = 0.05), arthralgia (11 (65%) vs. 12 (26%), OR = 5.35 [95%CI 1.63–17.60], p = 0.007) (Table 3) and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (80 [58–91] vs. 92 [IQR 78–101] ml/min/1.73m2, mean difference 14.44 [95%CI 0.80–28.09], p = 0.04) (Additional file 3: Table S4).
Compared to patients who successfully avoided intubation with noninvasive support, a higher proportion of intubated patients showed DLCO < 80% (OR = 6.27 [95%CI 1.26–31.29], p = 0.03), forced vital capacity < 80% (OR = 5.6 [95%CI 1.40–22.44], p = 0.02) and total lung capacity (OR = 7.43 [95%CI 1.97–28.08], p = 0.003) (Table 3, Additional file 3: Table S4, Fig. 3).
Median EQ-VAS was significantly lower in intubated patients, compared to those who had not (70 [53–70] vs. 80 [70–83], with a mean difference of 9.26 [95%CI 1.89–16.64], p = 0.01) (Fig. 3, Table 3, Additional file 3: Table S4).
Compared to non-intubated patients, a higher proportion of intubated patients reported mild problems (EQ-D5-L5 > 1) doing usual activities of the daily living (65% vs. 31%, OR = 3.99 [95%CI 1.27–12.58], p = 0.02) and in the mobility (59% vs. 26%, OR = 4.08 [95%CI 1.30–12.78], p = 0.02).
Compared to non-intubated patients, patients who had received invasive mechanical ventilation reported lower SF-36 scores, showing limitations in physical functioning (p = 0.01), limitations due to decreased physical health (p = 0.05), chronic pain (p = 0.03), and worsen overall health (p = 0.05) (Fig. 3, Table 3).
The results of our study on the functional outcomes of patients affected by COVID-19 moderate-to-severe respiratory failure treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen can be summarized as follows:
The incidence of symptoms was high in both groups, with no significant difference between them, except for a lower incidence of arthralgia in the helmet group.
Both groups demonstrated decreased physical status, functionality for pulmonary tests, and quality of life.
Patients who required endotracheal intubation had worse physical and psychological outcome at 6 months compared to those successfully treated with non-invasive respiratory support.
Exploring long-term consequences of these treatments is crucial to inform the ongoing debate regarding the optimal non-invasive management of acute respiratory failure.
Preserving spontaneous breathing in moderate-to-severe hypoxemic patients has benefits and risks.
It can help avoid complications related to invasive mechanical ventilation and prevent diaphragm dysfunction [28, 37], but may also exacerbate lung injury due to the combination of dysregulated respiratory drive and lung inhomogeneities causing patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) [29, 38,39,40].
P-SILI can occur during any noninvasive support strategy, but most concerns exist when mechanical increases in airway pressure are applied during NIV [41, 42]. In this context, high PEEP (of at least 10 cmH2O) can reduce lung inhomogeneity, improve lung mechanics, and decrease inspiratory effort, potentially mitigating the detrimental effects related to P-SILI [43,44,45,46]. However, if the inspiratory effort is low, helmet NIV leads to increased transpulmonary pressure and tidal volumes, which possibly worsen outcomes [41, 44, 47]. These risks underscore the importance of examining long-term outcomes, to rule out possible adverse effects on lung function caused by noninvasive support.
In our study, a considerable proportion of severe COVID-19 survivors experienced persistent symptoms, decreased respiratory performance and reduced quality of life 6 months after the infection, with no significant difference between helmet NIV and high-flow group. This overall rate of long-term sequalae reported in our study is consistent with current evidence [17, 20,21,22,23, 48, 49]. The only statistically significant difference between groups was an increased incidence of arthralgia in the high-flow group (55% vs. 16%, p = 0.002). Arthralgia is one of the most common long-term symptoms of COVID-19 . The underlying pathophysiological mechanism is not fully understood, but likely involves biochemical and inflammatory response pathways, such as cytokine increase and dysregulation . The higher incidence of arthralgia in the high-flow group may reflect the more frequent use of invasive mechanical ventilation, prone position sessions and muscle paralysis in these patients. Notably, all intubated patients received at least one session of prone positioning and muscle paralysis for a minimum of 24–48 h.
A significant proportion of patients had respiratory impairment 6 months after COVID-19, which is consistent with previous findings [19, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Decreased diffusing capacity and gas exchange impairment, reported in over half of the patients, are related to pulmonary interstitial damage . This may be linked to the reduction of pulmonary volumes, which was detected in up to one-third of our patients without difference between study groups: this may suggest a fibrotic evolution of the disease [60, 61].
Regarding health-related quality-of-life impairment, our findings align with other investigations and are linked to the psychological stress caused by intensive care unit stay, respiratory support and extended hospitalization and isolation periods [17, 48, 49, 56, 62]. Despite the general psychological impairment, our cohort did not present post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, such as sleeping and behavioral issues, according to the PCL-5 test.
Health-related quality of life of patients treated with helmet NIV was also explored by the recent follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID randomized trial . Consistently with our results, they found no difference in the EQ-VAS and the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire between helmet NIV and usual respiratory support: however, in the Helmet-COVID study, the control group included patients treated with high-flow oxygen, facemask NIV and conventional oxygen according to the clinical practice of participating centers. Differently, our study compared helmet NIV vs. high-flow nasal oxygen, which is the suggested first-line treatment for hypoxemic respiratory failure: this enhances the external validity and reproducibility of our findings.
Despite the difference in endotracheal intubation rate (9% in the helmet group vs. 28% in the high-flow group, p = 0.005), we did not find significant effects on long-term outcomes. This finding may be considered as surprising, since previous reports showed that avoiding intubation yields improved long-term outcomes, while endotracheal intubation, sedation, paralysis and invasive mechanical ventilation are associated with higher mortality and morbidity [24, 25, 63]. Lung protective ventilation bundles (including delivery of low tidal volumes and extensive use of prone position) and prevention measures for intensive care unit-acquired infections, which were rigorously applied in all patients. These may have contributed to limit the detrimental effects of invasive mechanical ventilation among patients who survived , mitigating any inter-group difference between patients treated with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen.
To address this aspect, we conducted a secondary analysis, comparing study outcomes for patients who received endotracheal intubation and invasive ventilation vs. those who did not. We found significant impairment in most items concerning pulmonary function, physical performance, and quality of life in patients who had been intubated vs. those who had not (Table 3, Figs. 2 and 3).
Furthermore, we performed two Random Forest analyses and display the respective MDS plot: one with treatment using high-flow or helmet NIV as independent variables and the other with endotracheal intubation as the independent variable. While the treatment allocation had a high out-of-bag estimation rate (39%), yielding higher uncertainties in its predictive power, a cluster of a group of patients treated with high-flow is identifiable in the confusion matrix (Additional file 1: Figure S1a). Despite exploratory in nature, this finding suggests a possible protective effect of helmet NIV on analyzed outcomes. Conversely, endotracheal intubation had a lower out-of-bag estimation rate (19.72%), suggesting lower uncertainties in its predictive power. In this case, although clustering could not be observed (Additional file 1 and 2: Figure S1a–b), a clear asymmetry in the model is presented, suggesting a strong relationship between endotracheal intubation and our outcomes.
Our study has relevant clinical implications: while avoiding endotracheal intubation has benefits, physicians need to carefully balance the advantages of averting intubation with the risk of treatment failure, which leads to delayed intubation and worse clinical outcomes . In this post hoc analysis of the HENIVOT trial, helmet NIV was not associated with poorer respiratory outcomes compared to high-flow, ruling out the possibility of long-term detrimental effects related to P-SILI caused by helmet NIV. This is likely due to the strict monitoring of patients and pre-specified criteria for endotracheal intubation, which limited intubation delay, with a median time between enrollment and intubation of 29 h [IQR 8–71] for the helmet group and 21 h [IQR 4–65] for high-flow group . In addition, despite prolonged treatments (48 h continuously in 91% of patients) and lower comfort with helmet NIV compared to high-flow , no difference was observed in terms of psychological effects. Given comparable physical and psychological medium-term effects, and the possible beneficial effect on endotracheal intubation, helmet NIV as applied in the HENIVOT trial might be an effective and safe strategy in acute hypoxemic failure.
Our study has several strengths: a systematic approach with a well-defined follow-up protocol, a multicenter involvement, a comprehensive assessment of physical and mental health status, a small number of patients lost to follow-up and few missing data.
Our study has some limitations. First, despite a high level of adherence to follow-up (71 participants out of 80 patients alive at 6 months), the sample might be underpowered to detect whether the need for endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation mediates the effect of applied interventions on analyzed outcomes. Second, many indices showed a difference between the two groups, although not significant, and we cannot exclude that a larger sample size might have revealed differences. Finally, the lack of pulmonary function tests before COVID-19 infection did not allow us to discriminate the effect of COVID-19 vs. the effects of P-SILI and ventilator-induced lung injury; however, the randomized design of the investigation should have made the two cohorts comparable.
In patients with COVID-19 requiring noninvasive respiratory support due to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of helmet noninvasive ventilation appears as effective and safe as high-flow oxygen, in terms of 6-month functional status and quality of life. Need for invasive mechanical ventilation after noninvasive support is strongly associated with worse quality of life, physical and psychological status at 6 months. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients.
Availability of data and materials
The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Coronavirus Disease appeared in 2019
Diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide
The EuroQoL five dimensions five levels test
- EQ VAS:
The EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale
Randomized clinical trial entitled “Effect of helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen on days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 moderate-to-severe hypoxemic respiratory failure”
Modified British Medical Research Council
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorder (DMS-5)
- SF 36:
Medical Outcomes Study 36 Items Short Form
30-Seconds chairs stand test
Six minutes walking test
Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, Antonelli M, Cabrini L, Castelli A, et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy. JAMA. 2020;323:1574–81.
Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, Hess D, Hill NS, Nava S, et al. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2017.
Grieco DL, Maggiore SM, Roca O, Spinelli E, Patel BK, Thille AW, et al. Non-invasive ventilatory support and high-flow nasal oxygen as first-line treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS. Intensive Care Med. 2021; 851–66.
Oczkowski S, Ergan B, Bos L, Chatwin M, Ferrer M, Gregoretti C, et al. ERS clinical practice guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2022;59:2101574.
Patel BK, Wolfe KS, Pohlman AS, Hall JB, Kress JP. Effect of noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet vs. face mask on the rate of endotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315:2435–41.
Ferreyro BL, Angriman F, Munshi L, del Sorbo L, Ferguson ND, Rochwerg B, et al. Association of noninvasive oxygenation strategies with all-cause mortality in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2020. p. 57–67.
Antonelli M, Conti G, Pelosi P, Gregoretti C, Pennisi MA, Costa R, et al. New treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Noninvasive pressure support ventilation delivered by helmet—a pilot controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:602–8.
Chaudhuri D, Jinah R, Burns KEA, Angriman F, Ferreyro BL, Munshi L, et al. Helmet noninvasive ventilation compared to facemask noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2022;59:2101269.
Liu Q, Gao Y, Chen R, Cheng Z. Noninvasive ventilation with helmet versus control strategy in patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies. Crit Care. 2016;20:265.
Hong S, Wang H, Tian Y, Qiao L. The roles of noninvasive mechanical ventilation with helmet in patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021;16: e0250063.
Cesarano M, Grieco DL, Michi T, Munshi L, Menga LS, Delle Cese L, et al. Helmet noninvasive support for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: rationale, mechanism of action and bedside application. Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12:94.
Bongiovanni F, Michi T, Natalini D, Grieco DL, Antonelli M. Advantages and drawbacks of helmet noninvasive support in acute respiratory failure. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2023;17:27–39.
Grieco DL, Menga LS, Cesarano M, Rosà T, Spadaro S, Bitondo MM, et al. Effect of helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen on days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure: the HENIVOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325:1731–43.
Writing Committee for the COMEBAC Study Group, Morin L, Savale L, Pham T, Colle R, Figueiredo S, et al. Four-month clinical status of a cohort of patients after hospitalization for COVID-19. JAMA. 2021;325:1525–34.
Wu X, Liu X, Zhou Y, Yu H, Li R, Zhan Q, et al. 3-month, 6-month, 9-month, and 12-month respiratory outcomes in patients following COVID-19-related hospitalisation: a prospective study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:747–54.
Demoule A, Morawiec E, Decavele M, Ohayon R, Malrin R, Galarza-Jimenez MA, et al. Health-related quality of life of COVID-19 two and 12 months after intensive care unit admission. Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12:16.
Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet. 2021;397:220–32.
Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324:603.
Ekbom E, Frithiof R, Emilsson Ö, Larson IM, Lipcsey M, Rubertsson S, et al. Impaired diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide is common in critically ill Covid-19 patients at four months post-discharge. Respir Med. 2021;182:106394.
Crook H, Raza S, Nowell J, Young M, Edison P. Long covid—mechanisms, risk factors, and management. BMJ. 2021;n1648.
Bek LM, Berentschot JC, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Huijts S, van Genderen ME, Vlake JH, et al. Symptoms persisting after hospitalisation for COVID-19: 12 months interim results of the CO-FLOW study. ERJ Open Res. 2022;8.
O’Brien K, Townsend L, Dowds J, Bannan C, Nadarajan P, Kent B, et al. 1-year quality of life and health-outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study. Respir Res. 2022;23:115.
Huang L, Li X, Gu X, Zhang H, Ren L, Guo L, et al. Health outcomes in people 2 years after surviving hospitalisation with COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10:863–76.
Herridge MS, Cheung AM, Tansey CM, Matte-Martyn A, Diaz-Granados N, Al-Saidi F, et al. One-year outcomes in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:683–93.
Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matté A, Tomlinson G, Diaz-Granados N, Cooper A, et al. Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1293–304.
Patel BK, Wolfe KS, MacKenzie EL, Salem D, Esbrook CL, Pawlik AJ, et al. One-year outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of helmet versus facemask noninvasive ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1078–84.
Arabi YM, Al-Dorzi HM, Aldekhyl S, Al Qahtani S, Abdukahil SA, Al Qasim E, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support: follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49:302–12.
Yoshida T, Fujino Y, Amato MBP, Kavanagh BP. Fifty years of research in ARDS. Spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation. Risks, mechanisms, and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:985–92.
Carteaux G, Parfait M, Combet M, Haudebourg A-F, Tuffet S, Mekontso Dessap A. Patient-self inflicted lung injury: a practical review. J Clin Med. 2021;10.
Munari AB, Gulart AA, dos Santos K, Venâncio RS, Karloh M, Mayer AF. Modified medical research council dyspnea scale in GOLD classification better reflects physical activities of daily living. Respir Care. 2018;63:77–85.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.
Apolone G, Mosconi P. The Italian SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1025–36.
Weathers FW, LBT, KTM, PPA, MBP, & SPP. The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Scale available from the National Center for PTSD at www.ptsd.va.gov. 2013.
ATS Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories. ATS Statement: guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:111–7.
Bruun IH, Maribo T, Nørgaard B, Schiøttz-Christensen B, Mogensen CB. A prediction model to identify hospitalised, older adults with reduced physical performance. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:281.
Brochard L, Slutsky A, Pesenti A. Mechanical ventilation to minimize progression of lung injury in acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:438–42.
Grieco DL, Menga LS, Eleuteri D, Antonelli M. Patient self-inflicted lung injury: implications for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS patients on non-invasive support. Minerva Anestesiol [Internet]. 2019;5–12.
Yoshida T, Uchiyama A, Matsuura N, Mashimo T, Fujino Y. Spontaneous breathing during lung-protective ventilation in an experimental acute lung injury model: high transpulmonary pressure associated with strong spontaneous breathing effort may worsen lung injury. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:1578–85.
Yoshida T, Torsani V, Gomes S, De Santis RR, Beraldo MA, EL Costa V, et al. Spontaneous effort causes occult pendelluft during mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188:1420–7.
Grieco DL, Menga LS, Raggi V, Bongiovanni F, Anzellotti GM, Tanzarella ES, et al. Physiological comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and helmet noninvasive ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201:303–12.
Grieco DL, Menga LS, Cesarano M, Spadaro S, Bitondo MM, Berardi C, et al. Phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 who have a positive clinical response to helmet noninvasive ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205:360–4.
Yoshida T, Grieco DL, Brochard L, Fujino Y. Patient self-inflicted lung injury and positive end-expiratory pressure for safe spontaneous breathing. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2020;26:59–65.
Menga LS, Delle Cese L, Rosà T, Cesarano M, Scarascia R, Michi T, et al. Respective effects of helmet pressure support, continuous positive airway pressure and nasal high-flow in hypoxemic respiratory failure: a randomized crossover clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;
Yoshida T, Roldan R, Beraldo MA, Torsani V, Gomes S, De Santis RR, et al. Spontaneous effort during mechanical ventilation: maximal injury with less positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:e678–88.
Morais CCA, Koyama Y, Yoshida T, Plens GM, Gomes S, Lima CAS, et al. High positive end-expiratory pressure renders spontaneous effort noninjurious. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197:1285–96.
Tonelli R, Busani S, Tabbì L, Fantini R, Castaniere I, Biagioni E, et al. Inspiratory effort and lung mechanics in spontaneously breathing patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19: a matched control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204:725–8.
Sanchez-Ramirez DC, Normand K, Zhaoyun Y, Torres-Castro R. Long-term impact of COVID-19: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Biomedicines. 2021;9:900.
Gautam N, Madathil S, Tahani N, Bolton S, Parekh D, Stockley J, et al. Medium-term outcomes in severely to critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74:301–8.
Malik P, Patel K, Pinto C, Jaiswal R, Tirupathi R, Pillai S, et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)-a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2022;94:253–62.
Silva Andrade B, Siqueira S, de Assis Soares WR, de Souza Rangel F, Santos NO, Dos Santos Freitas A, et al. Long-COVID and post-COVID health complications: an up-to-date review on clinical conditions and their possible molecular mechanisms. Viruses. 2021;13:700.
Bellan M, Soddu D, Balbo PE, Baricich A, Zeppegno P, Avanzi GC, et al. Respiratory and psychophysical sequelae among patients with COVID-19 four months after hospital discharge. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4: e2036142.
So M, Kabata H, Fukunaga K, Takagi H, Kuno T. Radiological and functional lung sequelae of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med. 2021;21:97.
Anastasio F, Barbuto S, Scarnecchia E, Cosma P, Fugagnoli A, Rossi G, et al. Medium-term impact of COVID-19 on pulmonary function, functional capacity and quality of life. Eur Respir J. 2021;58:2004015.
Safont B, Tarraso J, Rodriguez-Borja E, Fernández-Fabrellas E, Sancho-Chust JN, Molina V, et al. Lung function, radiological findings and biomarkers of fibrogenesis in a cohort of COVID-19 patients six months after hospital discharge. Arch Bronconeumol. 2022;58:142–9.
van den Borst B, Peters JB, Brink M, Schoon Y, Bleeker-Rovers CP, Schers H, et al. Comprehensive health assessment 3 months after recovery from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:e1089–98.
Faverio P, Luppi F, Rebora P, Busnelli S, Stainer A, Catalano M, et al. Six-month pulmonary impairment after severe COVID-19: a prospective multicentre follow-up study. Respiration. 2021;100:1078–87.
González J, Benítez ID, Carmona P, Santisteve S, Monge A, Moncusí-Moix A, et al. Pulmonary function and radiologic features in survivors of critical COVID-19. Chest. 2021;160:187–98.
Qin W, Chen S, Zhang Y, Dong F, Zhang Z, Hu B, et al. Diffusion capacity abnormalities for carbon monoxide in patients with COVID-19 at 3-month follow-up. Eur Respir J. 2021;58:2003677.
George PM, Wells AU, Jenkins RG. Pulmonary fibrosis and COVID-19: the potential role for antifibrotic therapy. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8:807–15.
Tanni SE, Fabro AT, de Albuquerque A, Ferreira EVM, Verrastro CGY, Sawamura MVY, et al. Pulmonary fibrosis secondary to COVID-19: a narrative review. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2021;15:791–803.
Cao J, Zheng X, Wei W, Chu X, Chen X, Wang Y, et al. Three-month outcomes of recovered COVID-19 patients: prospective observational study. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2021;15:175346662110094.
Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315:788.
Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Madotto F, Fan E, Brochard L, et al. Noninvasive ventilation of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Insights from the LUNG SAFE study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:67–77.
Members of the COVID-ICU Gemelli study group:
Riccardo Maviglia1,2, Giovanna Mercurio1,2, Paolo De Santis1,2, Mariano Alberto Pennisi1,2, Gian Marco Anzellotti3, Flavia Torrini4, Carlotta Rubino4, Tony C. Morena1,2, Veronica Gennenzi1,2, Stefania Postorino1,2, Joel Vargas1,2, Nicoletta Filetici1,2, Donatella Settanni1,2, Miriana Durante1,2, Laura Cascarano1,2, Mariangela Di Muro1,2, Roberta Scarascia1,2, Maria Maddalena Bitondo5, Martina Murdolo1,2, Alessandro Mele1,2, Serena Silva1,2, Carmelina Zaccone1,2, Francesca Pozzana1,2, Alessio Maccaglia1,2, Martina Savino1,2, Antonella Potalivo5, Francesca Ceccaroni5, Angela Scavone5, Gianmarco Lombardi1,2, Giuseppe Bello1,2, Luca Montini1,2, Antonio Maria Dell’Anna1,2, Carlo Alberto Volta6, Vito M. Ranieri7, Giulia Falò6, Simone Carelli1,2, Daniele Natalini1,2, Cecilia Berardi1,2, Luca Delle Cese1,2, Luigi Vetrugno3, Eleonora Balzani8.
1Department of Emergency, Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS; Rome, Italy.
2Istituto di Anestesiologia e Rianimazione, Catholic University of The Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
3Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care Medicine and Emergency, SS. Annunziata Hospital, Chieti, Italy.
4Centro di Rianimazione 1, Azienda ospedaliara San Camillo Forlanini, Rome, Italy.
5Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy
6Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Arcispedale Sant’Anna, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
7Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Policlinico di Sant’Orsola, Alma Mater Studiorum-Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
8Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Univerità degli Studi di Torino, Italy.
The study was in part supported by a research Grant by SIAARTI (2017 MSD award) and by Ministero della Salute (Ricerca Corrente 2023).
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by local Ethics Committee and informed consent was obtained by enrolled patients according to committee recommendation.
Consent for publication
DLG has received payments for travel expenses by Getinge and Air Liquide, speaking fees by Intersurgical, GE, Fisher and Paykel, and Gilead. MA has received payments for Board participation from Maquet, Air Liquide, and Chiesi. DLG and MA disclose a research Grant by General Electric Healthcare. DLG is supported by Grants by ESICM and SIAARTI.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Michi, T., Mattana, C., Menga, L.S. et al. Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial. j intensive care 11, 21 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-023-00669-0