scholarly journals Endobronchial valve positioning for alveolar-pleural fistula following ICU management complicating COVID-19 pneumonia

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierluigi Donatelli ◽  
Fabiana Trenatacosti ◽  
Maria Rosaria Pellegrino ◽  
Roberto Tonelli ◽  
Giulia Bruzzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Lung Parenchyma ◽  
Interventional Bronchoscopy ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Air Leaks ◽  
Endobronchial Valve ◽  
Clinical Consequences

Abstract Background The main clinical consequences of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are pneumonia and respiratory failure even requiring mechanical ventilation. In this context, the lung parenchyma is highly prone to ventilator-related injury, with pneumothorax and persistent air leak as the most serious adverse events. So far, endobronchial valve (EBV) positioning has proved efficacious in treating air leaks with a high success rate. Case presentation We report, for the first time, two cases of patients affected by SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia complicated with bacterial super-infection, experiencing pneumothorax and persistent air leaks after invasive mechanical ventilation. Despite the severity of respiratory failure both patients underwent rigid interventional bronchoscopy and were successfully treated through EBV positioning. Conclusions Persistent air leaks may result from lung tissue damage due to a complex interaction between inflammation and ventilator-related injury (VILI), especially in the advanced stages of ARDS. EBV positioning seems to be a feasible and effective minimally invasive therapeutic option for treating this subset of patients.

Comparative study between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed N Al Shafi'i ◽  
Doaa M. Kamal El-din ◽  
Mohammed A. Abdulnaiem Ismaiel ◽  
Hesham M Abotiba
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been increasingly used in the management of respiratory failure in intensive care unit (ICU). Aim of the Work is to compare the efficacy and resource consumption of NIPPMV delivered through face mask against invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) delivered by endotracheal tube in the management of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Patients and Methods This prospective randomized controlled study included 78 adults with acute respiratory failure who were admitted to the intensive care unit. The enrolled patients were randomly allocated to receive either noninvasive ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). Results Severity of illness, measured by the simplified acute physiologic score 3 (SAPS 3), were comparable between the two patient groups with no significant difference between them. Both study groups showed a comparable steady improvement in PaO2:FiO2 values, indicating that NIPPV is as effective as CMV in improving the oxygenation of patients with ARF. The PaCO2 and pH values gradually improved in both groups during the 48 hours of ventilation. 12 hours after ventilation, NIPPMV group showed significantly more improvement in PaCO2 and pH than the CMV group. The respiratory acidosis was corrected in the NIPPV group after 24 hours of ventilation compared with 36 hours in the CMV group. NIPPV in this study was associated with a lower frequency of complications than CMV, including ventilator acquired pneumonia (VAP), sepsis, renal failure, pulmonary embolism, and pancreatitis. However, only VAP showed a statistically significant difference. Patients who underwent NIPPV in this study had lower mortality, and lower ventilation time and length of ICU stay, compared with patients on CMV. Intubation was required for less than a third of patients who initially underwent NIV. Conclusion Based on our study findings, NIPPV appears to be a potentially effective and safe therapeutic modality for managing patients with ARF.

scholarly journals Awake Prone Position in Hypoxemic Patients with Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVI-PRONE): A Study protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan for Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zainab Al Duhailib ◽  
Yaseen Arabi ◽  
Sarah Culgin ◽  
Jason Weatherald ◽  
Ken Kuljit S. Parhar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Prone Position ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Altered Mental Status ◽  
Hemodynamic Instability ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may progress to respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Due to ventilator shortage and healthcare systems strain, affordable interventions such as awake prone positioning has been used to improve oxygenation, however, the effect of this intervention on patient-important outcomes is uncertain. The COVI-PRONE trial aims to determine if awake prone positioning in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Study design A pragmatic, multicenter, international, parallel-group, and stratified randomized controlled trial, aiming to enrol 400 hospitalized adults with COVID-19. Participants The target population is hospitalized adults with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, hypoxemia that requires ≥40% oxygen or ≥ 5 L/min by nasal cannula, and abnormal chest x-ray. We will exclude patients with any of the following: immediate need for intubation; altered mental status; contraindication to prone positioning; hemodynamic instability; body mass index > 40 kg/m2; third trimester pregnancy; do not intubate status; previous enrolment or intubation within the same hospital admission; and prone positioning for more than one day prior to randomization. Study intervention and control Following informed a priori or deferred consent, eligible patients will be centrally randomized to either the intervention arm (prone positioning) or standard of care (no prone positioning). Patients randomized to the prone position will be required to either self-prone or assist-prone for a total of eight to ten hours per day until they meet pre-specified stopping criteria. Study outcomes The primary outcome is invasive mechanical ventilation at 30-days of randomization. Other outcomes include mortality at 60 days, invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation free days at 30 days, hospital length of stay at 60 days, days alive and outside of the hospital at 60 days, complications of proning, and serious adverse events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document