DENTAL APPOINTMENT TO ICU ADMISSION: BRONCHIAL ASPIRATION OF A DENTAL TOOL DURING CROWN IMPLANTATION

CHEST Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. A1987
Author(s):  
Raghavendra Sanivarapu ◽  
Eric Lam ◽  
Shiva Arjun ◽  
Jagadish Akella ◽  
Javed Iqbal
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e044384
Author(s):  
Guduru Gopal Rao ◽  
Alexander Allen ◽  
Padmasayee Papineni ◽  
Liyang Wang ◽  
Charlotte Anderson ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to describe evolution, epidemiology and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in subjects tested at or admitted to hospitals in North West London.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingLondon North West Healthcare NHS Trust (LNWH).ParticipantsPatients tested and/or admitted for COVID-19 at LNWH during March and April 2020Main outcome measuresDescriptive and analytical epidemiology of demographic and clinical outcomes (intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality) of those who tested positive for COVID-19.ResultsThe outbreak began in the first week of March 2020 and reached a peak by the end of March and first week of April. In the study period, 6183 tests were performed in on 4981 people. Of the 2086 laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases, 1901 were admitted to hospital. Older age group, men and those of black or Asian minority ethnic (BAME) group were predominantly affected (p<0.05). These groups also had more severe infection resulting in ICU admission and need for mechanical ventilation (p<0.05). However, in a multivariate analysis, only increasing age was independently associated with increased risk of death (p<0.05). Mortality rate was 26.9% in hospitalised patients.ConclusionThe findings confirm that men, BAME and older population were most commonly and severely affected groups. Only older age was independently associated with mortality.


Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 431
Author(s):  
Chun-Fu Lin ◽  
Yi-Syun Huang ◽  
Ming-Ta Tsai ◽  
Kuan-Han Wu ◽  
Chien-Fu Lin ◽  
...  

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) admission following a short-term emergency department (ED) revisit has been considered a particularly undesirable outcome among return-visit patients, although their in-hospital prognosis has not been discussed. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between adult patients admitted to the ICU after unscheduled ED revisits and those admitted during index ED visits. Method: This retrospective study was conducted at two tertiary medical centers in Taiwan from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017. All adult non-trauma patients admitted to the ICU directly via the ED during the study period were included and divided into two comparison groups: patients admitted to the ICU during index ED visits and those admitted to the ICU during return ED visits. The outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, mechanical ventilation (MV) support, profound shock, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and total medical cost. Results: Altogether, 12,075 patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 64.6 (15.7) years were included. Among these, 5.3% were admitted to the ICU following a return ED visit within 14 days and 3.1% were admitted following a return ED visit within 7 days. After adjusting for confounding factors for multivariate regression analysis, ICU admission following an ED revisit within 14 days was not associated with an increased mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89 to 1.32), MV support (aOR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.26), profound shock (aOR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.18), prolonged HLOS (difference: 0.04 days, 95% CI: −1.02 to 1.09), and increased total medical cost (difference: USD 361, 95% CI: −303 to 1025). Similar results were observed after the regression analysis in patients that had a 7-day return visit. Conclusion: ICU admission following a return ED visit was not associated with major in-hospital outcomes including mortality, MV support, shock, increased HLOS, or medical cost. Although ICU admissions following ED revisits are considered serious adverse events, they may not indicate poor prognosis in ED practice.


Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Xourgia ◽  
Christina Routsi ◽  
Anastasia Kotanidou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e045482
Author(s):  
Didier Collard ◽  
Nick S Nurmohamed ◽  
Yannick Kaiser ◽  
Laurens F Reeskamp ◽  
Tom Dormans ◽  
...  

ObjectivesRecent reports suggest a high prevalence of hypertension and diabetes in COVID-19 patients, but the role of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in the clinical course of COVID-19 is unknown. We evaluated the time-to-event relationship between hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes and COVID-19 outcomes.DesignWe analysed data from the prospective Dutch CovidPredict cohort, an ongoing prospective study of patients admitted for COVID-19 infection.SettingPatients from eight participating hospitals, including two university hospitals from the CovidPredict cohort were included.ParticipantsAdmitted, adult patients with a positive COVID-19 PCR or high suspicion based on CT-imaging of the thorax. Patients were followed for major outcomes during the hospitalisation. CVD risk factors were established via home medication lists and divided in antihypertensives, lipid-lowering therapy and antidiabetics.Primary and secondary outcomes measuresThe primary outcome was mortality during the first 21 days following admission, secondary outcomes consisted of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU mortality. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to determine the association with CVD risk factors.ResultsWe included 1604 patients with a mean age of 66±15 of whom 60.5% were men. Antihypertensives, lipid-lowering therapy and antidiabetics were used by 45%, 34.7% and 22.1% of patients. After 21-days of follow-up; 19.2% of the patients had died or were discharged for palliative care. Cox regression analysis after adjustment for age and sex showed that the presence of ≥2 risk factors was associated with increased mortality risk (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.02), but not with ICU admission. Moreover, the use of ≥2 antidiabetics and ≥2 antihypertensives was associated with mortality independent of age and sex with HRs of, respectively, 2.09 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.80) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.91).ConclusionsThe accumulation of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes leads to a stepwise increased risk for short-term mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients independent of age and sex. Further studies investigating how these risk factors disproportionately affect COVID-19 patients are warranted.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Sangkum ◽  
Chama Wathanavaha ◽  
Visasiri Tantrakul ◽  
Munthana Pothong ◽  
Cherdkiat Karnjanarachata

Abstract Background Undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with adverse perioperative outcomes. The STOP-Bang questionnaire is a validated screening tool for OSA. However, its precision may vary among different populations. This study determined the association between high-risk OSA based on the modified STOP-Bang questionnaire and perioperative adverse events. Methods This cross-sectional study included patients undergoing elective surgery from December 2018 to February 2019. The modified STOP-Bang questionnaire includes a history of Snoring, daytime Tiredness, Observed apnea, high blood Pressure, Body mass index > 30 kg/m2, Age > 50, Neck circumference > 40 cm, and male Gender. High risk for OSA was considered as a score ≥ 3. Results Overall, 400 patients were included, and 18.3% of patients experienced perioperative adverse events. On the basis of modified STOP-Bang, the incidence of perioperative adverse events was 23.2 and 13.8% in patients with high risk and low risk (P-value 0.016) (Original STOP-Bang: high risk 22.5% vs. low risk 14.7%, P-value 0.043). Neither modified nor original STOP-Bang was associated with perioperative adverse events (adjusted OR 1.91 (95% CI 0.99–3.66), P-value 0.055) vs. 1.69 (95%CI, 0.89–3.21), P-value 0.106). Modified STOP-Bang ≥3 could predict the incidence of difficult ventilation, laryngoscopic view ≥3, need for oxygen therapy during discharge from postanesthetic care unit and ICU admission. Conclusions Neither modified nor original STOP-Bang was significantly associated with perioperative adverse events. However, a modified STOP-Bang ≥3 can help identify patients at risk of difficult airway, need for oxygen therapy, and ICU admission. Trial registrations This study was registered on Thai Clinical Trials Registry, identifier TCTR20181129001, registered 23 November 2018 (Prospectively registered).


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 992
Author(s):  
Martina Barchitta ◽  
Andrea Maugeri ◽  
Giuliana Favara ◽  
Paolo Marco Riela ◽  
Giovanni Gallo ◽  
...  

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) were at higher risk of worsen prognosis and mortality. Here, we aimed to evaluate the ability of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) to predict the risk of 7-day mortality, and to test a machine learning algorithm which combines the SAPS II with additional patients’ characteristics at ICU admission. We used data from the “Italian Nosocomial Infections Surveillance in Intensive Care Units” network. Support Vector Machines (SVM) algorithm was used to classify 3782 patients according to sex, patient’s origin, type of ICU admission, non-surgical treatment for acute coronary disease, surgical intervention, SAPS II, presence of invasive devices, trauma, impaired immunity, antibiotic therapy and onset of HAI. The accuracy of SAPS II for predicting patients who died from those who did not was 69.3%, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.678. Using the SVM algorithm, instead, we achieved an accuracy of 83.5% and AUC of 0.896. Notably, SAPS II was the variable that weighted more on the model and its removal resulted in an AUC of 0.653 and an accuracy of 68.4%. Overall, these findings suggest the present SVM model as a useful tool to early predict patients at higher risk of death at ICU admission.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document