Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19
Authors: Holger J. Schünemann, Joanne Khabsa, Karla Solo, Assem M. Khamis, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Amena El-Harakeh, Andrea Darzi, Anisa Hajizadeh, Antonio Bognanni, Anna Bak, Ariel Izcovich, Carlos A. Cuello-Garcia, Chen Chen, Ewa Borowiack, Fatimah Chamseddine, Finn Schünemann, Gian Paolo Morgano, Giovanna E.U. Muti-Schünemann, Guang Chen, Hong Zhao, Ignacio Neumann, Jan Brozek, Joel Schmidt, Layal Hneiny, Leila Harrison, Marge Reinap, Mats Junek, Nancy Santesso, Rayane El-Khoury, Rebecca Thomas, Robby Nieuwlaat, Rosa Stalteri, Sally Yaacoub, Tamara Lotfi, Tejan Baldeh, Thomas Piggott, Yuan Zhang, Zahra Saad, Bram Rochwerg, Dan Perri, Eddy Fan, Florian Stehling, Imad Bou Akl, Mark Loeb, Paul Garner, Stephen Aston, Waleed Alhazzani, Wojciech Szczeklik, Derek K. Chu, Elie A. Akl
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2020)

An update is available for this article. Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. Data Sources: 21 standard, World Health Organization–specific and COVID-19–specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. Study Selection: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. Data Extraction: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). Data Synthesis: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. Limitation: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. Conclusion: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. Primary Funding Source: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187)