Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization; it has affected millions of people and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia may develop acute hypoxia respiratory failure and require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive respiratory management. Healthcare workers have a high risk of contracting COVID-19 while fitting respiratory devices. Recently, European experts have suggested that the use of helmet continuous positive airway pressure should be the first choice for acute hypoxia respiratory failure caused by COVID-19 because it reduces the spread of the virus in the ambient air. By contrast, in the United States, helmets were restricted for respiratory care before the COVID-19 pandemic until the Food and Drug Administration provided the ‘Umbrella Emergency Use Authorization for Ventilators and Ventilator Accessories’. This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview of the use of helmet ventilation for patients with respiratory failure.

Keywords

helmet ventilation noninvasive respiratory support continuous positive airway pressure noninvasive positive pressure ventilation coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),¹ was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020.² The COVID-19 pandemic has affected millions of people and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide.³ People with severe COVID-19 develop hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) and require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive respiratory management.^1,4,5 Healthcare workers have a high risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 via large droplets, respiratory secretions, contact with contaminated surfaces, or exposure to exhaled air within a distance of 0.5–1.0 m while fitting a respiratory device.^6,7 During the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in China, medical teams recommended early endotracheal intubation to avoid clinical deterioration.⁸ This approach was also suggested by Marini and Gattinoni in a JAMA editorial.⁹ However, the unprecedented number of patients outnumbered the limited supply of ventilators and the capacity of intensive care units (ICUs). Thus, some experts have argued that intubation and mechanical ventilation were employed too early^10,11 and that noninvasive respiratory support should be used to prevent clinical deterioration and the complications of mechanical ventilation.¹¹ Noninvasive respiratory support—including conventional oxygen therapy (COT), the heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV)—may reduce the need for ventilators and ICU beds. A recent study revealed that delivering noninvasive respiratory support outside the ICU is a feasible strategy.¹² A report from China indicated that 41% of patients with COVID-19 required oxygen therapy.¹³ The average NIPPV usage in China was 20.1% (range, 4.9%–56%),^4,5,14 whereas the average HFNC usage was 22.8% (range, 0%–63.5%),^5,14 However, whether noninvasive respiratory support increases the degree of virus aerosolisation and spread of virus-bearing droplets remains controversial.^15–17 Recently, European experts recommended helmet CPAP as the first therapeutic choice for hypoxemic ARF caused by COVID-19 because it reduces the spread of the virus into the ambient air.^18–21 By contrast, in the United States, helmets were not common in respiratory care before the COVID-19 pandemic. On 24 March 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided the ‘Umbrella Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Ventilators and Ventilator Accessories’ to relieve the insufficient supply of FDA-cleared ventilators and ventilator accessories for use in healthcare settings to treat patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. This EUA authorised the use of two helmets, namely the Subsalve Oxygen Treatment Hood (Lombardi Undersea LLC, Middletown, RI, USA) and the StarMed CaStar-R (Intersurgical, Wokingham, UK), on 4 and 14 August, respectively.²² The present narrative review provides an evidence-based overview of the use of helmet ventilation in patients with respiratory failure.

Dispersion of exhaled air

Noninvasive respiratory support is essential in the treatment of COVID-19; however, exhaled air can promote dispersion of the virus, thus increasing the risk of nosocomial infection.²³ Because droplets from patients with COVID-19 are currently considered a major route for transmission, healthcare workers must be aware of the dispersion of exhaled air during noninvasive respiratory support.^15,24,25 Hui et al. examined exhaled air dispersion during COT, HFNC, CPAP, and NIPPV (Table 1). In these in vitro studies, smoke laser visualisation was used to assess the dispersion distance of exhaled air from a high-fidelity human patient simulator in a hospital bed reclined at 45°.^26–33

Table 1.

Dispersion of exhaled Air in In vitro models of noninvasive respiratory support.

Type of respiratory support	Environmental conditions	Setting	Exhaled air dispersion distance
Nasal cannula
Hui, 2011²⁷	Dimensions: 4.1 × 5.1 × 2.6 m³	O₂ flow: 1 L/min	66 cm*
	Pressure: − 7 Pa	O₂ flow: 3 L/min	70 cm*
	ACH: 16 changes/h	O₂ flow: 5 L/min	100 cm*
Hui, 2011²⁸	Dimensions: 2.7 × 4.2 × 2.4 m³	O₂ flow: 1 L/min	30 cm*
	Pressure: − 5 Pa	O₂ flow: 3 L/min	40 cm*
	ACH: 12 changes/h	O₂ flow: 5 L/min	45 cm*
Hui, 2014²⁸	Dimensions: 2.8 × 4.22 × 2.4 m³	O₂ flow: 1 L/min	30 cm*
	Pressure: − 5 Pa	O₂ flow: 3 L/min	36 cm*
	ACH: 12 changes/h	O₂ flow: 5 L/min	42 cm*
Simple mask
Hui, 2006²⁹	No report of environment conditions	O₂ flow: 4 L/min	40 cm*
Hui, 2007³⁰	Dimensions: 7.1 × 8.5 × 2.7 m³	O₂ flow: 4 L/min	20 cm*
	Pressure: ambient pressure	O₂ flow: 6 L/min	22 cm*
	ACH: temporarily suspended	O₂ flow: 8 L/min	30 cm*
	ACH: temporarily suspended	O₂ flow: 10 L/min	40 cm*
Venturi mask
Hui, 2014²⁸	General medical ward	FiO₂: 0.24	33 cm*
	Pressure: ambient pressure	FiO₂: 0.40	40 cm*
	Ventilation: double exhaust fans	FiO₂: 0.40	40 cm*
Nonrebreathing mask
Hui, 2014²⁸	Dimensions: 2.8 × 4.22 × 2.4 m³	O₂ flow: 6 L/min	<10 cm*
	Pressure: − 5 Pa	O₂ flow: 8 L/min	<10 cm*
	ACH: 12 changes/h	O₂ flow: 10 L/min	<10 cm*
	ACH: 12 changes/h	O₂ flow: 12 L/min	<10 cm*
Jet nebuliser
Hui, 2009²⁶	Dimensions: 2.8 × 4.22 × 2.4 m³	Air flow: 6 L/min	45 cm*
	Pressure: − 5 Pa
	ACH: 12 changes/h
High-flow nasal cannula
Hui, 2019³¹ (Airvo²)	Dimensions: 4.1 × 5.1 × 2.6 m³	Total flow: 10 L/min	6 ± 1 cm^#
	Pressure: − 7.4 Pa	Total flow: 30 L/min	13 ± 1 cm^#
	ACH: 16 changes/h	Total flow: 60 L/min	17 ± 3 cm^#
	ACH: 16 changes/h	Total flow: 60 L/min (loose fit)	62 cm*
Nasal pillow
Hui, 2019³¹ (Nuance Pro Gel)	Dimensions: 4.1 × 5.1 × 2.6 m³	CPAP: 5 cmH₂O	18 ± 3 cm^#
	Pressure: − 7.4 Pa	CPAP: 10 cmH₂O	24 ± 3 cm^#
	ACH: 16 changes/h	CPAP: 15 cmH₂O	25 ± 3 cm^#
	ACH: 16 changes/h	CPAP: 20 cmH₂O	26 ± 2 cm^#
Hui, 2019³¹ (Swift FX)	Dimensions: 4.1 × 5.1 × 2.6 m³	CPAP: 5 cmH₂O	20 ± 4 cm^#
	Pressure: − 7.4 Pa	CPAP: 10 cmH₂O	21 ± 3 cm^#
	ACH: 16 changes/h	CPAP: 15 cmH₂O	23 ± 3 cm^#
	ACH: 16 changes/h	CPAP: 20 cmH₂O	33 ± 3 cm^#
Oronasal mask (with exhalation port within the mask)
Hui, 2006⁶ (ResMed Mirage)	Dimensions: 7.1 × 8.5 × 2.7 m³	IPAP/EPAP: 10/4 cmH₂O	40 cm*
	Pressure: ambient pressure	IPAP/EPAP: 14/4 cmH₂O	42 cm*
	ACH: temporarily suspended	IPAP/EPAP: 18/4 cmH₂O	45 cm*
Hui, 2014²⁸ (Respironics ComfortFull 2)	Dimensions: 2.8 × 4.22 × 2.4 m³	IPAP/EPAP: 10/4 cmH₂O	65 cm*
	Pressure: − 5 Pa	IPAP/EPAP: 14/4 cmH₂O	65 cm*
	ACH: 12 changes/h	IPAP/EPAP: 18/4 cmH₂O	85 cm*
Hui, 2019³¹ (Quattro Air)	Dimensions: 4.1 × 5.1 × 2.6 m³	CPAP: 5 cmH₂O	Negligible
	Pressure: − 7.4 Pa	CPAP: 10 cmH₂O	Negligible
	ACH: 16 changes/h	CPAP: 15 cmH₂O	Negligible
	ACH: 16 changes/h	CPAP: 20 cmH₂O	Negligible
Oronasal mask (without exhalation port within the mask) plus external exhalation port
Hui, 2014²⁸ (Respironics Image 3 plus Whisper Swivel Valve)	Dimensions: 2.8 × 4.22 × 2.4 m³	IPAP/EPAP: 10/4 cmH₂O	95 cm*
	Pressure: − 5 Pa	IPAP/EPAP: 14/4 cmH₂O	95 cm*
	ACH: 12 changes/h	IPAP/EPAP: 18/4 cmH₂O	>95 cm*
Total full facemask
Hui, 2015³² (Respironics Total face mask)	Dimensions: 6.1 × 7.4 × 3.0 m³	IPAP/EPAP: 10/5 cmH₂O	69 ± 8 cm^#
	Pressure: No report	IPAP/EPAP: 14/5 cmH₂O	70 ± 5 cm^#
	ACH: 12 changes/h	IPAP/EPAP: 18/4 cmH₂O	91 ± 3 cm^#
Helmet
Hui, 2015³² (Sea-Long head tent)	Dimensions: 6.1 × 7.4 × 3.0 m³	IPAP/EPAP: 12/10 cmH₂O	17 ± 3 cm^#
	Pressure: No report	IPAP/EPAP: 14/10 cmH₂O	20 ± 2 cm^#
	ACH: 12 changes/h	IPAP/EPAP: 18/10 cmH₂O	21 ± 3 cm^#
	ACH: 12 changes/h	IPAP/EPAP: 20/10 cmH₂O	27 ± 2 cm^#
Hui, 2015³² (StarMed CaStar-R)	Dimensions: 6.1 × 7.4 × 3.0 m³	IPAP/EPAP: 12/10 cmH₂O	Negligible
	Pressure: No report	IPAP/EPAP: 14/10 cmH₂O	Negligible
	ACH: 12 changes/h	IPAP/EPAP: 18/10 cmH₂O	Negligible
	ACH: 12 changes/h	IPAP/EPAP: 20/10 cmH₂O	Negligible

*Data presented as maximum; ^#data presented as mean ± standard deviation.

ACH: air changes per hour; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; IPAP: inspiratory positive airway pressure; EPAP: expiratory positive airway pressure; FiO₂: fraction of inspired oxygen.

COT via a nasal cannula

COT via a nasal cannula with an oxygen flow rate of 3 L/min was performed in differently sized negative pressure rooms; the maximal distance of exhaled air dispersion was 36–70 cm.^27,28 When the oxygen flow was increased to 5 L/min, the maximal distance of exhaled air increased to 100 cm.²⁷

COT via a simple mask

For COT via a simple mask, the maximal exhaled air dispersion was 40 cm for an oxygen flow rate of 4 L/min, but details of the environmental conditions were not provided.²⁹ Another examination was conducted in a laboratory room, and a jet plume of air leaked through the side vents to lateral distances of 40 cm during the delivery of oxygen at a flow rate of 10 L/min. However, room ventilation was temporarily suspended for this test, which is not a realistic scenario.³⁰

COT via a Venturi mask

Use of COT via a Venturi mask was evaluated in a general ward with ambient pressure and double exhaust fans for room ventilation. When the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) for the Venturi mask was 0.24 and 0.4, the exhaled air dispersion distances were 33 and 44 cm, respectively.²⁸

COT via a nonrebreathing mask

Because of its one-way valves, the nonrebreathing mask reduced the exhaled air dispersion distance to less than 10 cm, even for an oxygen flow rate of 12 L/min.²⁸

Jet nebuliser

A jet nebuliser with an airflow of 6 L/min yielded a maximum exhaled air dispersion distance of 45 cm.²⁶ The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence³⁴ and The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease³⁵ have suggested that regular inhalation therapy should be maintained for patients with chronic obstructive lung disease. Because exhaled air is a concern, healthcare workers should consider using pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), or soft mist inhalers (SMIs) instead of jet nebulisers. Use of valved holding chambers with pMDIs or SMIs is also possible. DPIs are breath-actuated devices; healthcare workers should pay attention to coughs caused by DPI use. The use of nebulisers for patients with COVID-19 is controversial,^36,37 and unnecessary or unproven nebulisation therapies should be avoided.^38,39

High-flow oxygen therapy via a nasal cannula

When an HFNC was appropriately inserted into the nostril, exhaled air was detected at distance of up to 6, 13, and 17 cm when the total flow rate was 10, 30, and 60 L/min, respectively. However, the dispersion distance of exhaled air gradually increased to 62 cm as the fit between the nasal cannula and nostril became looser.³¹

High-flow oxygen therapy via tracheostomy

The dispersion of exhaled air during the application of high-flow oxygen therapy via tracheostomy has not been examined. The large expiratory port on the high-flow tracheostomy interface (OPT970, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) is designed for exhalation; thus, considerable leakage and a large distance of exhaled air dispersion might reasonably be expected.⁴⁰ Based on our experience, high-flow tracheal oxygen is not recommended for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

CPAP via a nasal pillow

Two nasal pillows (i.e. Respironics Nuance Pro Ge and RedMed Swift FX) were tested with CPAP values of 5, 10, 15, and 20 cmH₂O. Similar exhaled air dispersion distances were observed for the Respironics Nuance Pro Ge and RedMed Swift FX (26 and 33 cm, respectively).³¹

CPAP via an oronasal facemask (with exhalation port)

No significant exhaled air dispersion was observed from the Quattro Air mask, even with a CPAP of 20 cmH₂O.³¹ In contrast to NIPPV, CPAP provides constant airway pressure during the respiratory cycle; thus, leakage was limited by the absence of a delta pressure between the inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) and expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP).

NIPPV via an oronasal facemask (with exhalation port within the mask)

The maximal dispersion distance of exhaled air during the application of NIPPV via an oronasal facemask with an exhalation port within the mask was 45 cm for an IPAP of 18 cmH₂O and an EPAP of 4 cmH₂O. However, the environmental conditions of this test were unrealistic because the room ventilation was temporarily suspended.⁶ This examination was performed again in a negative pressure isolation room several years later, and the maximal exhaled air dispersion distance was increased to 85 cm for an IPAP of 18 cmH₂O and an EPAP of 4 cmH₂O.²⁸

NIPPV via an oronasal facemask (without exhalation port within the mask) plus external exhalation port

When the oronasal facemask does not contain an exhalation port, an additional exhalation port should be applied to create a continuous leakage path and prevent carbon dioxide (CO₂) rebreathing during NIPPV with a single limb breathing circuit. The maximal exhaled air dispersion distance was 95 cm for the oronasal facemask connected to a Whisper Swivel Exhalation Port.²⁸

NIPPV via a total full facemask

Exhaled air dispersion was measured during application of NIPPV via a Respironics Total facemask with IPAP values 10, 14, and 18 cmH₂O and EPAP maintained at 5 cmH₂O. The exhaled air dispersion distances were 69, 70, and 91 cm, respectively.³²

NIPPV via a helmet

During the application of NIPPV via two helmets (i.e. Sea-Long head tent and CaStar-R StarMed), air exhalation was observed from the neck–tent interface. In the examination, EPAP was maintained at 10 cmH₂O for all scenarios. For the Sea-Long head tent with a double limb breathing circuit, IPAP values of 12, 14, 18, and 20 cmH₂O resulted in dispersion distances of 17, 20, 21, and 27 cm, respectively. For the CaStar-R StarMed, air leakage was negligible due to the soft collar around the neck–helmet interface with a double limb breathing circuit.³²

This series of investigations demonstrated the relationship between noninvasive respiratory support and the dispersion of exhaled air from a human patient simulator. Although these data could have been overestimated due to droplets being heavier than smoke, some phenomena and trends should be considered. The use of an external exhalation port (the Whisper Swivel) resulted in a gradual increase of the dispersion distance of exhaled air, even with a low IPAP setting.³² A higher IPAP resulted in a wider spread of exhaled air, especially when the total full facemask was employed, which may have not provided a tight seal at the interface.²⁸ Compared with NIPPV via an oronasal facemask, an HFNC did not result in a wider spread of exhaled air as expected.³¹ However, tight fit of a nasal cannula into the nostril is difficult to maintain. The most valuable information obtained from these studies was that exhaled air dispersion was negligible when CPAP was used via an oronasal facemask³¹ or NIPPV was performed via a helmet³² even though the treatment pressures for the helmet tests were relatively low (delta pressure: 2–10 cmH₂O) compared with those in the other scenarios, such as NIPPV via an oronasal facemask or total full facemask.^28,32 Reduced dispersion of exhaled air could contribute to minimising environmental contamination. However, unlike the in vitro studies by Hui et al., two in vivo studies have revealed that facemask noninvasive respiratory support does not increase aerosol generation and dispersal compared with HFNC or COT.^16,17

Helmet ventilation

NIPPV is usually administered via a facemask rather than a helmet. A large web-based European survey of 25 countries showed that the most frequently used interface was the oronasal facemask, followed by the total full facemask, nasal mask, and helmet. The helmet has been extensively used in Italy, but the overall percentage of use in Europe is relatively low.⁴¹ Ulcerations of the nasal bridge, skin damage, air leakage, and discomfort are the most common complications when patients receive facemask NIPPV.^42–44 Recently, the application of NIPPV via a helmet has attracted considerable attention worldwide due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with COVID-19 can be treated with noninvasive respiratory support via a helmet in general wards, freeing up ICU beds.⁴⁵

The helmet is a transparent latex-free polyvinyl chloride hood originally designed for the administration of a specific gas concentration in hyperbaric oxygen therapy;⁴⁶ it surrounds the patient's head and is sealed around the neck with a soft latex-free polyurethane collar.⁴⁷ The hood and neck collar are connected by a hard plastic ring and secured to the patient with padded armpit braces, which are attached to hooks on the front and back of the hard plastic ring.⁴⁷ To ensure a tight but comfortable seal, the size of the helmet is selected on the basis of the patient's neck circumference. The helmet can be connected to a ventilator by using conventional breathing circuit to join two ports and thus provide inspiratory and expiratory flow. In contrast to the oronasal facemask, the helmet surrounds the patient's head and is sealed around the neck using a soft collar without contacting the nose or mouth (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

(A) Configuration of a helmet connected to an ICU ventilator with a cold passover humidifier. HMEF: Heat and moisture exchanging filter; ICU: Intensive care unit; NG tube: Nasogastric tube.

Ventilator settings should be adjusted to prevent patients from rebreathing CO₂; that is, the pressure support levels should be set to maintain an inspiratory flow rate of >100 L/min.⁴⁷ To prevent patient–ventilator asynchrony and minimise the breathing effort, the inspiratory rise time should be 50 ms, and the ventilator off-cycling should be set at 50% of the peak inspiratory flow rate.⁴⁸ If available, the end-tidal CO₂ inside the helmet can be monitored using a sampling line.⁴⁹ To reduce the noise generated by the high rate of gas flow, a heat and moisture exchange filter can be connected to the inspiratory limb close to the helmet as an exhaust gas muffler.⁵⁰ Under-humidification can cause problems if active humidification is not performed during helmet ventilation. Chiumello et al. investigated the humidity inside a helmet for high-flow generator CPAP and ventilator CPAP. During ventilator CPAP, the humidity inside the helmet was similar to that of the ambient air. The large internal gas volume can be considered a chamber in which the dry inspired medical gas and the heated humidified gas expired by the patient are mixed. By contrast, during high-flow generator CPAP, the humidity inside the helmet was lower than that in the ambient air. To improve gas temperature and humidity, Chiumello et al. suggested applying an active humidifier with an inspiratory heated breathing circuit, especially for high-flow generator helmet CPAP.⁵¹ If a heat and moisture exchange filter is employed for noise reduction, it should be placed between the outlet of ventilator and the inlet of the auto-feeding water chamber.⁵²

We suggested used a heat and moisture exchange filter for noise reduction and applying a cold passover humidifier during a helmet ventilation (Figure 1).

Clinical effects of helmet ventilation

Although helmet ventilation is currently used extensively in Italy, in the past two decades, few studies have compared CPAP or NIPPV via a helmet with a traditional interface. For CPAP, Chiumello et al. demonstrated that application via a helmet or a traditional interface yielded similar effects in terms of breathing pattern and work of breath in healthy subjects; moreover, they revealed that NIPPV via an oronasal facemask reduced work of breath.⁵³

Helmet CPAP

Most helmet CPAP is delivered by using a high-flow generator and not a ventilator (Table 2). For helmet CPAP delivery with a ventilator, a high-flow oxygen therapy mode with a continuous flow >50 L/min is suggested.⁴⁷ To evaluate the helmet as a novel interface for CPAP, two prospective, historical case–control studies compared the efficacy of the helmet and facemask in 2003 and 2004, respectively (Table 1).⁵⁴ Principi et al. indicated that the helmet had higher tolerability than the facemask;^54,55 Tonnelier et al. obtained similar results.⁵⁵ To investigate the efficacy of helmet CPAP for patients with hypoxemic ARF, three multicentre trials^56–58 and one single-centre trial⁵⁹ were conducted in Italy. Squadrone et al. demonstrated that helmet CPAP improved oxygenation^56,59 and reduced the need for ICU admission and ventilatory support.⁵⁹ In a study of patients with severe hypoxemic ARF after abdominal surgery and another of patients with haematologic malignancy, the incidence of endotracheal intubation was lower in the helmet CPAP group than in the COT group.^56,59 Two multicentre investigations by Cosentini et al. and Brambilla et al. demonstrated that CPAP via a helmet rapidly increased oxygenation^57,58 and reduced the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with pneumonia and hypoxemic ARF.⁵⁸ A meta-analysis of these four heterogeneous randomised controlled trials concluded that helmet CPAP improves oxygenation, reduces the incidence of endotracheal intubation, and lowers mortality.⁶⁰

Table 2.

Clinical trials of helmet CPAP.

Reference	Type of Study	Enrolment	Intervention	Results
Tonnelier, 2003⁵⁴	Single-centre, prospective, case–control study	Patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet CPAP, n = 11	Helmet and facemask CPAP both improved physiological parameters and ABG values. No interface intolerance was reported.
			CPAP: 7.5 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: 1.0
			Facemask CPAP, n = 11
			CPAP: 7.5 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: 1.0
Principi, 2004⁵⁵	Single-centre, prospective, case–control study	Patients with haematological malignancy with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet CPAP, n = 17	Compared with facemask CPAP, helmet CPAP improved oxygenation. Intubation rate was lower in the helmet CPAP group than in the facemask group. CPAP was better tolerated in the helmet group than in the facemask group.
			CPAP: 8 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: 0.6
			Facemask CPAP, n = 17
			CPAP: 8 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: 0.6
Squadrone, 2005⁵⁶	Multicentre, prospective, RCT	Postoperative patients with acute hypoxemic	Helmet CPAP, n = 105	Compared with COT, helmet CPAP improved oxygenation. Intubation rate and occurrence rates of pneumonia, infection, and sepsis were lower in the helmet CPAP group than in the COT group. Helmet CPAP resulted in shorter ICU LOS than did COT.
			CPAP: 7.5 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: 0.5
			COT (VM), n = 104
			FiO₂: 0.5
Squadrone, 2010⁵⁹	Single-centre, prospective, RCT	Patients with haematological malignancy with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet CPAP, n = 20	Compared with COT, helmet CPAP rapidly improved oxygenation without changes in PaCO₂ tension. The intubation rate was lower in the helmet CPAP group than in the COT group. Helmet CPAP had reduced the need for ICU admission and NIPPV support compared with COT.
			CPAP: 10 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: 0.5
			COT (VM), n = 20
			FiO₂: 0.5
Cosentini, 2010⁵⁷	Multicentre, prospective, RCT	Patients with community-acquired pneumonia with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet CPAP, n = 20	Compared with COT, helmet CPAP rapidly improved oxygenation without changes in PaCO₂ tension. No patients were intubated.
			CPAP: 10 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: 0.5 (set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 92%)
			COT (VM), n = 27
			FiO₂: 0.5 (set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 92%)
Brambilla, 2014⁵⁸	Multicentre, prospective, RCT	Patients with pneumonia with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet CPAP, n = 40	Compared with COT, helmet CPAP rapidly improved oxygenation. Fewer patients met the intubation criteria in the helmet CPAP group than in the COT group. Two patients in the helmet CPAP group and one in the COT group were intubated.
			CPAP: 10 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: 0.5(set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 92%)
			COT (VM), n = 41
			FiO₂: 0.5 (set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 92%)
Aliberti, 2020⁶¹	Multicentre, prospective, observational study	Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet CPAP, n = 157	Oxygenation was improved after 6 h of helmet CPAP, and 78.3% of patients avoided endotracheal intubation. Only four patients reported intolerance and discontinued helmet CPAP. Treatment failure was associated with pneumonia severity.
			CPAP: No report
			FiO₂: No report
Coppadoro, 2021⁶²	Multicentre, retrospective, observational study	Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet CPAP, n = 157	Compared with COT, helmet CPAP rapidly improved oxygenation. Nearly half of the patients were successfully treated with helmet CPAP. Helmet CPAP failure mostly occurred in patients with a do-not-intubate order.
			CPAP: No report
			FiO₂: No report

CPAP: continues positive airway pressure; ARF: acute respiratory failure; FiO₂: fraction of inspired oxygen; ABG: arterial blood gas; COT: conventional oxygen therapy; RCT: randomized controlled trial; VM: Venturi mask; ICU: intensive care unit; LOS: length of stay; PaCO₂: arterial carbon dioxide tension; COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019.

To determine the effects of helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19, two multicentre, observational studies were conducted in Italy.⁶¹

The helmet CPAP failure rate were 44.6% in the high-dependency units⁶¹ and 48% in the COVID-19 wards,⁶² the failure was associated with the severity of pneumonia,⁶¹ age, time to oxygen therapy failure, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio during helmet CPAP, C-reactive protein, and number of comorbidities.⁶² Oxygenation was significantly improved in both studies.^61,62

Ali et al. demonstrated that no patients were intubated within the 1 h after helmet CPAP initiation, and only 2.5% of patients discontinued helmet CPAP due to intolerance in the high-dependency units. Moreover, 123 patients (78.3%) avoided endotracheal intubation.⁶¹ Coppadoro et al. showed the feasibility of using helmet CPAP outside the ICU, without major adverse event. Helmet CPAP had resulted a good outcome in 69.3% of the full treatment patients without escalating to intubation or mortality. As a rescue therapy, 28.5% of Do Not Intubated patients survive with helmet CPAP treatment.⁶²

Helmet NIPPV

Antonelli et al. conducted two multicentre, prospective, case–control studies of patients with hypoxemic ARF during 2000–2001. Oxygenation was improved by both helmet NIPPV and facemask NIPPV.^63,64 The intubation rate, ICU length of stay (LOS), and incidence of mortality were similar for these two interfaces in patients with hypoxemic ARF⁶³ and in those with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).⁶⁴ Intolerances and complications related to the facemask were more common than those related to the helmet in both studies (Table 3).^63,64

Table 3.

Clinical trials of helmet NIPPV.

Reference	Type of Study	Enrolment	Intervention	Results
Antonelli, 2002⁶³	Multicentre, prospective, case–control study	Patients with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet NIPPV, n = 33	Helmet and facemask NIPPV both improved oxygenation.
			PS: set for symptom relief^a	Helmet and facemask NIPPV both improved oxygenation.
			PEEP: 10–12 cmH₂O	Helmet NIPPV resulted in fewer complications and intolerances than did facemask NIPPV. The intubation rate, ICU LOS, and mortality were similar.
			FiO₂: set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 92%
			Facemask NIPPV, n = 66
			PS: set to maintain V_Te of 8–10 mL/kg and for symptom relief^a
			PEEP: 10–12 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 92%
Antonelli, 2004⁶⁴	Multicentre, prospective, case–control study	Patients with AECOPD with hypercapnic ARF	Helmet NIPPV, n = 33	Facemask NIPPV resulted in higher CO₂ clearance compared with helmet NIPPV, but the improvement in oxygenation was similar.
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and then increased for symptom relief^a
			PEEP: 5–7 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: no report	Intubation rate, ICU LOS, and mortality were similar. More intolerances were observed in the facemask NIPPV group than in the helmet NIPPV group among patients requiring intubation.
			Facemask NIPPV, n = 33
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and then increased for symptom relief*
			PEEP: 5–7 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: no report	Helmet NIPPV resulted in fewer complications than did facemask NIPPV.
Rocco, 2004⁶⁵	Single-centre, prospective, case–control study	Immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet NIPPV, n = 19	Helmet and facemask NIPPV both improved oxygenation. Helmet NIPPV resulted in fewer complications and intolerances than did facemask NIPPV. Intubation rate, ICU LOS, and mortality were similar.
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and then increased for symptom relief^a
			PEEP: ≤12 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: set to maintain SaO₂ ≥ 90%
			Facemask NIPPV, n = 19
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and then increased to maintain V_Te of 7–9 ml/kg and symptom relief*
			PEEP: ≤12 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: set to maintain SaO₂ ≥ 90%
Antonaglia, 2011⁶⁶	Single-centre, prospective, RCT	Patients with AECOPD with hypercapnic ARF	Helmet NIPPV, n = 20	Helmet NIPPV and facemask NIPPV had similar effects on oxygenation. Facemask NIPPV had a higher CO₂ clearance, shorter ICU LOS, and shorter duration of NIPPV than did helmet NIPPV. Intubation rate was lower in the helmet NIPPV group than in the facemask NIPPV group.
			PS: set for symptom relief^b
			PEEP: 5 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 90%
			Facemask NIPPV, n = 20
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and for symptom relief^b
			PEEP: 5 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 90%
Ali, 2011⁶⁷	Single-centre, prospective, RCT	Patients with AECOPD with hypercapnic ARF	Helmet NIPPV, n = 15	Facemask NIPPV resulted in higher CO₂ clearance compared with helmet NIPPV, but the improvements in oxygenation were similar.
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and then increased to maintain V_Te of 6–8 mL/kg and for symptom relief^c
			PEEP: 5–7 cmH₂O	The intubation rate was similar, but helmet NIPPV resulted in fewer intolerances than did facemask NIPPV.
			FiO₂: initiated at 0.4 and then set to maintain SaO₂ ≥ 92%
			Facemask NIPPV, n = 15
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and then increased to maintain V_Te 6–8 of mL/kg and for symptom relief^c
			PEEP: 5–7 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: initiated at 0.4 and then set to maintain SaO₂ ≥ 92%
Özlem, 2015⁶⁸	Single-centre, prospective, RCT	Patients with AECOPD with hypercapnic ARF	Helmet NIPPV, n = 25	The effects on oxygenation were similar in the helmet NIPPV and facemask NIPPV groups. The efficiency for improving CO₂ levels was also similar between the groups, but the decrease in CO₂ levels was slower in the helmet NIPPV group than in the facemask NIPPV group. Similar tolerance and intubation rates were observed.
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and then increased to maintain V_Te of 6–8 mL/kg and for symptom relief^c
			PEEP: 5–7 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 92%
			Facemask NIPPV, n = 23
			PS: initiated at 10 cmH₂O and then increased to maintain V_Te of 6–8 mL/kg and for symptom relief^c
			PEEP: 5–7 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: set to maintain SpO₂ ≥ 92%
Pisani, 2015⁶⁹	Multicentre, prospective, RCT	Patients with AECOPD with hypercapnic ARF	Helmet NIPPV, n = 39	The effects on oxygenation and CO₂ clearance were similar in the helmet NIPPV and facemask NIPPV groups.
			PS: initiated at ≥16 cmH₂O and then increased for symptom relief^d
			PEEP: initiated at >5 cmH₂O and then increased for symptom relief^d	The intubation rate and respiratory rate were similar
			FiO₂: no report
			Facemask NIPPV, n = 41
			PS: set to maintain V_Te 6–8 of mL/kg
			PEEP: 3–5 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: no report
Patel, 2016⁷⁰	Single-centre, prospective, RCT	Patients with ARDS	Helmet NIPPV, n = 44	Helmet NIPPV resulted in a lower intubation rate, ICU LOS, and mortality compared with facemask NIPPV. More ventilator-free days were observed in the helmet NIPPV group than in the facemask NIPPV group. The incidences of adverse effects similar.
			PS: set for symptom relief^a
			PEEP: set to maintain SaO₂ ≥ 90%
			FiO₂: ≤0.6
			Facemask NIPPV, n = 39
			PS: set for symptom relief^a
			PEEP: set to maintain SaO₂ ≥ 90%
			FiO₂: ≤0.6
Grieco, 2021⁷²	Multicentre, prospective, RCT	Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with hypoxemic ARF	Helmet NIPPV, n = 54	The number of respiratory support–free days was similar between the groups. The intubation rate was lower in the helmet NIPPV group than in the HFNC group. The helmet NIPPV group had a shorter duration of invasive
			PS: 10–12 cmH₂O
			PEEP: 10–12 cmH₂O
			FiO₂: set to maintain SpO₂ 92–98%
			HFNC, n = 55
			Total flow: 60L/min	ventilation. The groups exhibited a similar ICU LOS and mortality rate.
			FiO₂: set to maintain SpO₂ 92–98%

Symptom relief: respiratory rate < 25 b/m and comfort status without accessory muscle activity.

Symptom relief: respiratory rate < 30 b/m, minimal air leakage, and comfort status without accessory muscle activity.

Symptom relief: adequate respiratory effort.

Symptom relief: respiratory rate < 20 b/m without accessory muscle activity.

NIPPV: noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; ARF: acute respiratory failure; PS: pressure support; PEEP: positive end-expiratory pressure; FiO₂: fraction of inspired oxygen; SpO₂: peripheral oxygen saturation; V_Te: exhaled tidal volume; ICU: intensive care unit; LOS: length of stay; AECOPD: acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CO₂: carbon dioxide; SaO₂: arterial oxygen saturation; RCT: randomized controlled trial; ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome; HFNC: high-flow nasal cannula.

In a single-centre, prospective, case–control study on immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic ARF, helmet NIPPV and facemask NIPPV yielded similar effects in terms of avoiding intubation. Sustained improvement of oxygenation was more common among patients who received helmet NIPPV than among those receiving facemask NIPPV, and they also exhibited lower occurrence of complications.⁶⁵ Moreover, three single-centre trials^66–68 and one multicentre trial⁶⁹ have compared the efficacy of helmet NIPPV and facemask NIPPV in patients with hypercapnic ARF due to AECOPD. Antonaglia et al. enrolled 40 participants who responded to facemask NIPPV and randomly assigned them to the helmet NIPPV group or facemask NIPPV group. Similar effects on oxygenation were observed in the groups. Facemask NIPPV resulted in higher CO₂ clearance, shorter ICU LOS, and shorter duration of NIPPV compared with helmet NIPPV, but helmet NIPPV yielded a higher tolerance rate and a lower intubation rate.⁶⁶ Two small single-centre trials conducted in Turkey demonstrated improved oxygenation in both helmet NIPPV and facemask NIPPV groups; no differences in oxygenation or incidence of intubation were observed between the groups.^67,68 In the study of Ali et al., the facemask NIPPV group had superior CO₂ clearance compared with the helmet NIPPV group.⁶⁷ By contrast, according to Özlem et al., the improvement in CO₂ level was similar between the groups, but the decrease in CO₂ level was slower in the helmet NIPPV group than in the facemask NIPPV group.⁶⁸

Short-term physiological response was evaluated using a multicentre trial. A total of 80 participants who presented with AECOPD were randomly assigned to receive NIPPV with either the facemask or helmet. Oxygenation, partial pressure of CO₂, respiratory rate, and dyspnoea were improved by both interfaces, but the dyspnoea score decreased more during facemask NIPPV than during helmet NIPPV. The intubation rate was low and similar between the groups. None of the participants discontinued NIPPV due to intolerance; however, two participants in the helmet NIPPV group required a change of interface due to claustrophobia.⁶⁹

Patel et al. conducted a single-centre trial in Chicago, United States, to determine whether helmet NIPPV could reduce the intubation rate or improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The intubation rate was significantly lower in the helmet NIPPV group than in the facemask NIPPV group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11–0.50; p < 0.001). Helmet NIPPV resulted in more ventilator-free days (28 vs. 12.5 days; p < 0.001) and shorter ICU LOS (4.7 vs. 7.8 days; p = 0.4) compared with the facemask NIPPV group. Compared with facemask NIPPV, helmet NIPPV also yielded a lower 90-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.23–0.99; p = 0.047). The overall incidence of adverse effects was low and did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the results of this study may have been compromised and the outcomes may have been exaggerated by early termination of the study based on the predetermined criteria for efficacy.⁷⁰ Liu et al. performed a meta-analysis in which patients who received helmet CPAP or helmet NIPPV were enrolled.⁷¹ Despite combining helmet CPAP and helmet NIPPV in the same study, similar improvement in oxygenation, reduction in the intubation rate, and decreased mortality were observed as in a previous report on helmet CPAP.⁶⁰ However, the present revealed high heterogeneity across the studies. The ability of CO₂ recovery in helmet NIPPV remains controversial. Some studies have indicated that helmet NIPPV may not clear CO₂ as efficiently as facemask NIPPV does.^64,66,67 No clear complications or adverse effects were observed during helmet NIPPV, although claustrophobia was reported in one study.⁶⁹

To determine the effects of helmet NIPPV in patients with COVID-19, an open-label multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial was conducted in Italy.⁷² A total of 109 patients who had a confirmed molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 were enrolled and completed the study. Among them, 54 were assigned to the helmet NIPPV group and 55 were assigned to the HFNC group. Compared with the HFNC group, the helmet NIPPV group exhibited more favourable oxygenation (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, 188 vs. 138; p < 0.001). Those in the HFNC group had a lower PaCO₂ level than those in the helmet NIPPV group (35 vs. 36 mmHg, p = 0.008). Although dyspnea improved in the helmet NIPPV group, this group also experienced more device-related discomfort. The number of respiratory support–free days was comparable between groups. The helmet NIPPV group had a lower intubation rate and more ventilator-free days than did the HFNC group. Compared with the helmet NIPPV group, more participants in the HFNC group were intubated because of hypoxemia, signs of respiratory muscle fatigue, and breathing deterioration. The two groups exhibited similar results in ICU LOS and mortality rate.

Strengths and limitations

The CaStar StarMed series has been widely used in clinical trials, especially in Italy (Table 4). The major difference between CaStar and CaStar-R is the internal volume.³³ For NIPPV, the CaStar-R designs have smaller internal volume than the CaStar designs. Moreover, CaStar-R has an inflatable interior cushion that also reduces the internal volume. The internal volume was reduced to improve patient–ventilator synchronisation and prevent CO₂ rebreathing (Table 5).

Table 4.

Helmet ventilation devices.

Reference	Location	Helmet	Power source
Helmet CPAP
Tonnelier, 2003⁵⁴	France	CaStar StarMed	High-flow generator
Principi, 2004⁵⁵	Italy	CaStar StarMed	High-flow generator
Squadrone, 2005⁵⁹	Italy	CaStar StarMed	High-flow generator
Squadrone, 2010⁵*	Italy	CaStar StarMed	High-flow generator
Cosentini, 2010⁵⁷	Italy	CaStar StarMed	High-flow generator
Brambilla, 2014⁵⁸	Italy	CaStar StarMed	High-flow generator
Aliberti, 2020⁶¹	Italy	CaStar StarMed	High-flow generator
Coppadoro, 2021⁶²	Italy	No report	High-flow generator
Helmet NIPPV/PS
Antonelli, 2002⁶³	Italy	CaStar-R StarMed	ICU ventilator (Servo 300 and Evita 4)
Antonelli, 2004⁶⁴	Italy	CaStar-R StarMed	ICU ventilator (Servo 300 and Evita 4)
Rocco, 2004⁶⁵	Italy	CaStar-R StarMed	ICU ventilator (Servo 300)
Antonaglia, 2011⁶⁶	Italy	CaStar-R StarMed	ICU ventilator (Puritan Bennett 7200)
Ali, 2011⁶⁷	Turkey	CaStar-R StarMed	ICU ventilator (Newport e500)
Özlem, 2015⁶⁸	Turkey	CaStar-R StarMed	ICU ventilator (Servo S)
Pisani, 2015⁶⁹	Italy	CaStar-R StarMed	ICU ventilator (No report)
Patel, 2016⁷⁰	USA	Sea-Long	ICU ventilator (Engström Carestation)
Grieco, 2021⁷²²	Italy	CaStar-R StarMed or Dimar	Compressed gas-based ventilator (No report)

CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; NIPPV: noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; PS: pressure support; ICU: intensive care unit.

Table 5.

Comparison of caStar and caStar-R.

	CaStar	CaStar-R
Intended use	CPAP	NIPPV
Internal volume (L)	16	11
inflatable cushion	Not applicable	Built-in
Pressure manometer	Built-in	Optional

CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; NIPPV: noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.

As an interface for NIPPV, the helmet has several advantages, including higher tolerability, reduced air leakage, and improved seal integrity.^54,56 Aerophagia is a relatively common problem resulting in gastric distention, which may increase the risk of vomiting and aspiration during NIPPV.^42,73 In patients with a high risk of gastric aspiration, a nasogastric tube can be inserted as a preventive measure. Nasogastric tubes are commonly used to decompress gastric air in the stomach, with this air caused by NIPPV.^74,75 However, the presence of a nasogastric tube may increase the amount of air leakage and compromise the effectiveness of NIPPV.^42,76 A specific port in the helmet can be used for the nasogastric tube to prevent air leakage.⁶³ The dispersion of exhaled air due to the placement of a nasogastric tube is likely much less in a helmet than in an oronasal facemask. Therefore, the helmet design may reduce the risk of transmission for healthcare workers when treating patients with COVID-19.

Several cautions and limitations of the helmet should be mentioned. The large internal volume and high compliance of the polyvinyl chloride hood may result in CO₂ rebreathing^47,77 and could induce patient–ventilator asynchrony.⁷⁸ Moreover, because of these features, the exhaled tidal volume cannot be reliably measured during helmet ventilation. Iatrogenic pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum during helmet CPAP may occur, especially at CPAP level >10 cmH₂O..⁷⁹ The helmet requires a high-flow generator or ventilator to provide treatment pressure and prevent CO₂ rebreathing, which are associated with high noise levels. The noise level in high-flow generator CPAP is higher than that in ventilator CPAP.^80,81 Earplugs and a heat and moisture exchanger filter may reduce the noise level.^50,80 Claustrophobia is a frightening sense of restriction and suffocation and can make breathing difficult.^82,83 Although claustrophobia may be unavoidable during helmet ventilation, it is not commonly mentioned in clinical reports. Clinicians should be aware of the risk of delirium during helmet CPAP treatment in older patients with COVID-19.⁸⁴

Conclusion

Although whether noninvasive respiratory support can increase the risk of airborne virus transmission via droplets is controversial, minimizing air leaks from noninvasive respiratory support is crucial. Thus, healthcare workers should choose noninvasive respiratory devices with caution during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review article is not intended to claim that helmet ventilation can replace invasive ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather, this article indicates that the early use of helmet ventilation could reduce clinical deterioration and decrease the likelihood of intubation while protecting healthcare workers from transmission through aerosol and droplets. Healthcare workers should also become familiar with helmet ventilation for future pandemics of highly infectious respiratory diseases. The samples in the clinical trials reviewed in this study were relatively small, even for multicentre trials. Randomised controlled trials with large samples are urgently warranted to test the outcomes of helmet ventilation for hypoxemic ARF in patients with or without COVID-19.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This manuscript was edited by Wallace Academic Editing.

Authors’ contributions

KYC and JSW responsible for literature search. KYC and WLL analyzed previous data and agreed on the conclusions. KYC wrote the manuscript with support from WLL. KYC is responsible for submit the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ke-Yun Chao

Jong-Shyan Wang

Author biographies

Ke-Yun Chao is a RRT and a PhD student who is mainly engaged in respiratory therapy,mechanical ventilation,and 3D printing technology.

Jong-Shyan Wang is a PhD professor who is mainly engaged in exercise physiological study.

Wei-Lun Liu is a MD who is mainly engaged in critical care medicine,pulmonary diseases and fungal infection research.

References

Zhu

Zhang

Wang

, et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 727–733.

World Health Organization. Timeline: WHO’s COVID-19 response, http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline?Gclid=Cj0KCQiAmL-abhdfarisakywvadu1ywkpgbd2uwayly_gezcycat2w0q285drz0 × 1-9usdbltlthwseaaqw0ealw_wcb#! Accessed (27 January, 2021).

World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) weekly epidemiological update and weekly operational update, www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports accessed (27 January, 2021).

mcgoogan

. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese center for disease control and prevention. JAMA 2020; 323: 1239–1242.

Yang

, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-cov-2 pneumonia in wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 475–481.

Hui

Hall

Chan

, et al. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation: an experimental model to assess air and particle dispersion. CHEST 2006; 130: 730–740.

Chang

Rebaza

, et al. Protecting health-care workers from subclinical coronavirus infection. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: e13.

World Health Organization. Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected: interim guidance, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331446 accessed (27 January, 2021).

Marini

Gattinoni

. Management of COVID-19 respiratory distress. JAMA 2020; 323: 2329–2330.

10.

Tobin

Laghi

Jubran

. Caution about early intubation and mechanical ventilation in COVID-19. Ann Intensive Care 2020; 10: 78.

11.

Rola

Farkas

Spiegel

, et al.

Rethinking the early intubation paradigm of COVID-19: time to change gears?

Clin Exp Emerg Med 2020; 7: 78–80.

12.

Cammarota

Esposito

Azzolina

, et al. Noninvasive respiratory support outside the intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus-19 disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2021; 25: 268.

13.

Guan

, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1708–1720.

14.

Chen

, et al. Clinical characteristics of 113 deceased patients with coronavirus disease 2019: retrospective study. Br Med J 2020; 368: m1091.

15.

World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations: scientific brief, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331601 accessed (27 January, 2021).

16.

Gaeckle

Lee

Park

, et al. Aerosol generation from the respiratory tract with various modes of oxygen delivery. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 1115–1124.

17.

Strand-Amundsen

Tronstad

Elvebakk

, et al. Quantification of aerosol dispersal from suspected aerosol-generating procedures. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7.

18.

Ferioli

Cisternino

Leo

, et al. Protecting healthcare workers from SARS-cov-2 infection: practical indications. Eur Respir Rev 2020; 29.

19.

Cabrini

Landoni

Zangrillo

. Minimise nosocomial spread of 2019-ncov when treating acute respiratory failure. Lancet 2020; 395: 685.

20.

Vitacca

Nava

Santus

, et al. Early consensus management for non-ICU acute respiratory failure SARS-cov-2 emergency in Italy: from ward to trenches. Eur Respir J 2020; 55.

21.

Radovanovic

Rizzi

Pini

, et al. Helmet CPAP to treat acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: a management strategy proposal. J Clin Med 2020; 9.

22.

Food and Drug Administration. Ventilators and ventilator accessories euas, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/ventilators-and-ventilator-accessories-euas accessed (20 February, 2021).

23.

Simonds

Hanak

Chatwin

, et al. Evaluation of droplet dispersion during non-invasive ventilation, oxygen therapy, nebuliser treatment and chest physiotherapy in clinical practice: implications for management of pandemic influenza and other airborne infections. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14: 131–172.

24.

Lake

. What we know so far: COVID-19 current clinical knowledge and research. Clin Med (Lond) 2020; 20: 124.

25.

Wang

. COVID-19 may transmit through aerosol. Ir J Med Sci 2020; 189: 1143–1144.

26.

Hui

Chow

Chu

, et al. Exhaled air and aerosolized droplet dispersion during application of a jet nebulizer. CHEST 2009; 135: 648–654.

27.

Hui

Chow

Chu

, et al. Exhaled air dispersion and removal is influenced by isolation room size and ventilation settings during oxygen delivery via nasal cannula. Respirology 2011; 16: 1005–1013.

28.

Hui

Chan

Chow

. Aerosol dispersion during various respiratory therapies: a risk assessment model of nosocomial infection to health care workers. Hong Kong Med J 2014; 20: 9–13.

29.

Hui

Tang

, et al.

Airflows around oxygen masks: a potential source of infection?

CHEST 2006; 130: 822–826.

30.

Hui

Hall

Chan

, et al. Exhaled air dispersion during oxygen delivery via a simple oxygen mask. CHEST 2007; 132: 540–546.

31.

Hui

Chow

, et al. Exhaled air dispersion during high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus CPAP via different masks. Eur Respir J 2019; 53: 1802339.

32.

Hui

Chow

, et al. Exhaled air dispersion during noninvasive ventilation via helmets and a total facemask. CHEST 2015; 147: 1336–1343.

33.

Intersurgical Ltd The starmed, https://www.intersurgical.com/info/starmed accessed (4 March, 2021).

34.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK). COVID-19 rapid guideline: community-based care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566605/ accessed (14 February, 2021).

35.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). GOLD COVID-19 guidance, https://goldcopd.org/gold-covid-19-guidance/ accessed (14 February, 2021).

36.

Benge

Barwise

. Aerosolization of COVID-19 and contamination risks during respiratory treatments. Fed Pract 2020; 37: 160–163.

37.

Hess

. Nebulized therapy in the COVID-19 era: the right tool for the right patient [Letter]. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2020; 15: 2101–2102.

38.

Ari

. Practical strategies for a safe and effective delivery of aerosolized medications to patients with COVID-19. Respir Med 2020; 167: 105987.

39.

Strickland

Rubin

Haas

, et al. AARC Clinical practice guideline: effectiveness of pharmacologic airway clearance therapies in hospitalized patients. Respir Care 2015; 60: 1071–1077.

40.

Lin

S-B

Chiang

C-E

Tseng

C-W

, et al.

High-flow tracheal oxygen: what is the current evidence?

Expert Rev Respir Med 2020; 14: 1075–1078.

41.

Crimi

Noto

Princi

, et al. A European survey of noninvasive ventilation practices. Eur Respir J 2010; 36: 362–369.

42.

Carron

Freo

bahammam

, et al. Complications of non-invasive ventilation techniques: a comprehensive qualitative review of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth 2013; 110: 896–914.

43.

Maruccia

Ruggieri

Onesti

. Facial skin breakdown in patients with non-invasive ventilation devices: report of two cases and indications for treatment and prevention. Int Wound J 2015; 12: 451–455.

44.

Navalesi

Fanfulla

Frigerio

, et al. Physiologic evaluation of noninvasive mechanical ventilation delivered with three types of masks in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Crit Care Med 2000; 28: 1785–1790.

45.

Bellani

Patroniti

Greco

, et al. The use of helmets to deliver non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. Minerva Anestesiol 2008; 74: 651–656.

46.

Leach

Rees

Wilmshurst

. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Br Med J 1998; 317: 1140–1143.

47.

Taccone

Hess

Caironi

, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure delivered with a “helmet": effects on carbon dioxide rebreathing. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 2090–2096.

48.

Vargas

Thille

Lyazidi

, et al. Helmet with specific settings versus facemask for noninvasive ventilation. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 1921–1928.

49.

Schmitt

Belliato

. Helmet NIV (NIPPV) ventilation on adult COVID-19 patients, https://www.hamilton-medical.com/en_US/E-Learning-and-Education/Knowledge-Base/Knowledge-Base-Detail∼2020-04-22∼Helmet-NIV-(NIPPV)-ventilation-on-adult-COVID-19-patients∼ad615df8-e219-412c-bbd2-61b5390ab736∼.html accessed (21 February, 2021).

50.

Lucchini

Bambi

Gurini

, et al. Noise level and comfort in healthy subjects undergoing high-flow helmet continuous positive airway pressure. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2020; 39: 194–202.

51.

Chiumello

Chierichetti

Tallarini

, et al. Effect of a heated humidifier during continuous positive airway pressure delivered by a helmet. Crit Care Clin 2008; 12: R55.

52.

Lucchini

Giani

Isgro

, et al. The “helmet bundle” in COVID-19 patients undergoing non invasive ventilation. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2020; 58: 102859.

53.

Chiumello

Pelosi

Carlesso

, et al. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation delivered by helmet vs. Standard face mask. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29: 1671–1679.

54.

Principi

Pantanetti

Catani

, et al. Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure delivered by helmet in hematological malignancy patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30: 147–150.

55.

Tonnelier

J-M

Prat

Nowak

, et al. Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure ventilation using a new helmet interface: a case-control prospective pilot study. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29: 2077–2080.

56.

Squadrone

Coha

Cerutti

, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure for treatment of postoperative hypoxemia a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 293: 589–595.

57.

Cosentini

Brambilla

Aliberti

, et al. Helmet continuous positive airway pressure vs oxygen therapy to improve oxygenation in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized, controlled trial. CHEST 2010; 138: 114–120.

58.

Brambilla

Aliberti

Prina

, et al. Helmet CPAP vs. Oxygen therapy in severe hypoxemic respiratory failure due to pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40: 942–949.

59.

Squadrone

Massaia

Bruno

, et al. Early CPAP prevents evolution of acute lung injury in patients with hematologic malignancy. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36: 1666–1674.

60.

Luo

, et al. Helmet CPAP versus oxygen therapy in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Yonsei Med J 2016; 57: 936–941.

61.

Aliberti

Radovanovic

Billi

, et al. Helmet CPAP treatment in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a multicentre cohort study. Eur Respir J 2020; 56.

62.

Coppadoro

Benini

Fruscio

, et al. Helmet CPAP to treat hypoxic pneumonia outside the ICU: an observational study during the COVID-19 outbreak. Crit Care 2021; 25: 80.

63.

Antonelli

Conti

Pelosi

, 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.

64.

Antonelli

Pennisi

Pelosi

, et al. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation using a helmet in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a feasibility study. Anesthesiology 2004; 100: 16–24.

65.

Rocco

Dell’Utri

Morelli

, et al. Noninvasive ventilation by helmet or face mask in immunocompromised patients: a case-control study. CHEST 2004; 126: 1508–1515.

66.

Antonaglia

Ferluga

Molino

, et al. Comparison of noninvasive ventilation by sequential use of mask and helmet versus mask in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preliminary study. Respiration 2011; 82: 148–154.

67.

Ali

Türkmen

Turgut

, et al. [Comparison of non-invasive mechanical ventilation with helmet or face mask in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. Tuberk Toraks 2011; 59: 146–152.

68.

Özlem

Ali

Fatma

, et al. Comparison of helmet and facial mask during noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled study. Turk J Med Sci 2015; 45: 600–606.

69.

Pisani

Mega

Vaschetto

, et al. Oronasal mask versus helmet in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 691–699.

70.

Patel

Wolfe

Pohlman

, et al. 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: 2435–2441.

71.

Liu

Gao

Chen

, et al. 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.

72.

Grieco

Menga

Cesarano

, 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.

73.

Gay

. Complications of noninvasive ventilation in acute care. Respir Care Clin N Am 2009; 54: 246.

74.

Ergan

Nasilowski

Winck

. How should we monitor patients with acute respiratory failure treated with noninvasive ventilation? Eur Respir Rev 2018; 27: 170101.

75.

Lin

Lee

Wang

, et al. In vitro evaluation of facial pressure and air leak with a newly designed cushion for non-invasive ventilation masks. Healthcare (Basel) 2020; 8: 523.

76.

Garpestad

Brennan

Hill

. Noninvasive ventilation for critical care. CHEST 2007; 132: 711–720.

77.

Hill

. Noninvasive interfaces: should we go to helmets? Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 2162–2163.

78.

Nava

Navalesi

. Helmet to deliver noninvasive ventilation: “handle with care”. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 2111–2113.

79.

Gidaro

Samartin

Brambilla

, et al. Correlation between continuous positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) values and occurrence of pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in SARS-cov2 patients during non-invasive ventilation with helmet. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2021; 38: e2021017.

80.

Cavaliere

Conti

Costa

, et al. Noise exposure during noninvasive ventilation with a helmet, a nasal mask, and a facial mask. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30: 1755–1760.

81.

Cavaliere

Conti

Costa

, et al. Exposure to noise during continuous positive airway pressure: influence of interfaces and delivery systems. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2008; 52: 52–56.

82.

Harris

Robinson

Menzies

. Evidence for fear of restriction and fear of suffocation as components of claustrophobia. Behav Res Ther 1999; 37: 155–159.

83.

Vadakkan

Siddiqui

. Claustrophobia. Statpearls. Treasure Island (FL): statpearls Publishing; 2021.

84.

Samartin

Salvi

Brambilla

, et al. Incidence and outcome of delirium during helmet CPAP treatment in COVID-19 patients. Intern Emerg Med 2021; 17:307–309