scholarly journals Tracheostomy in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients and follow-up: A parisian bicentric retrospective cohort

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0261024
Author(s):  
Diane Evrard ◽  
Igor Jurcisin ◽  
Maksud Assadi ◽  
Juliette Patrier ◽  
Victor Tafani ◽  
...  

Background Tracheostomy has been proposed as an option to help organize the healthcare system to face the unprecedented number of patients hospitalized for a COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in intensive care units (ICU). It is, however, considered a particularly high-risk procedure for contamination. This paper aims to provide our experience in performing tracheostomies on COVID-19 critically ill patients during the pandemic and its long-term local complications. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients tracheostomized for a COVID-19-related ARDS in two university hospitals in the Paris region between January 27th (date of first COVID-19 admission) and May 18th, 2020 (date of last tracheostomy performed). We focused on tracheostomy technique (percutaneous versus surgical), timing (early versus late) and late complications. Results Forty-eight tracheostomies were performed with an equal division between surgical and percutaneous techniques. There was no difference in patients’ characteristics between surgical and percutaneous groups. Tracheostomy was performed after a median of 17 [12–22] days of mechanical ventilation (MV), with 10 patients in the “early” group (≤ day 10) and 38 patients in the “late” group (> day 10). Survivors required MV for a median of 32 [22–41] days and were ultimately decannulated with a median of 21 [15–34] days spent on cannula. Patients in the early group had shorter ICU and hospital stays (respectively 15 [12–19] versus 35 [25–47] days; p = 0.002, and 21 [16–28] versus 54 [35–72] days; p = 0.002) and spent less time on MV (respectively 17 [14–20] and 35 [27–43] days; p<0.001). Interestingly, patients in the percutaneous group had shorter hospital and rehabilitation center stays (respectively 44 [34–81] versus 92 [61–118] days; p = 0.012, and 24 [11–38] versus 45 [22–71] days; p = 0.045). Of the 30 (67%) patients examined by a head and neck surgeon, 17 (57%) had complications with unilateral laryngeal palsy (n = 5) being the most prevalent. Conclusions Tracheostomy seems to be a safe procedure that could help ICU organization by delegating work to a separate team and favoring patient turnover by allowing faster transfer to step-down units. Following guidelines alone was found sufficient to prevent the risk of aerosolization and contamination of healthcare professionals.

2020 ◽  
Vol 134 (8) ◽  
pp. 735-738
Author(s):  
T J Stubington ◽  
M S Mansuri

AbstractBackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 is an international pandemic. One of the cardinal features is acute respiratory distress syndrome, and proning has been identified as beneficial for a subset of patients. However, proning is associated with pressure-related side effects, including injury to the nose and face.MethodThis paper describes a pressure-relieving technique using surgical scrub sponges. This technique was derived based on previous methods used in patients following rhinectomy.ConclusionThe increased use of prone ventilation has resulted in a number of referrals to the ENT team with concerns regarding nasal pressure damage. The described technique, which is straightforward and uses readily available materials, has proven effective in relieving pressure in a small number of patients.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Gilles Paché

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged many health systems, particularly in France, Italy and Spain. The very sharp increase in the number of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome led public hospitals to implement management-inspired logistical strategies. This comment focuses on the French system and underlines that hospitals tend to be increasingly managed like private companies.


Critical Care ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Raymondos ◽  
Tamme Dirks ◽  
Michael Quintel ◽  
Ulrich Molitoris ◽  
Jörg Ahrens ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 100 (10) ◽  
pp. 1737-1745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jillian A Ng ◽  
Lauren A Miccile ◽  
Christine Iracheta ◽  
Carolyn Berndt ◽  
Meredith Detwiller ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective Prone positioning is an effective intervention for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). An increasing number of patients with ARDS related to coronavirus disease 2019 require prone positioning, which poses a challenge to the intensive care unit staff at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Methods A prone team service of physical therapists and occupational therapists with critical care experience was established to assist with increasing demands for prone positioning of patients who were mechanically ventilated. The goals of the rehabilitation-based prone team were to provide support to nursing and respiratory therapy; create a consistent, efficient process; and ensure patient and staff safety. Results The service evolved over 7 weeks, expanding to 24-hour coverage and adding responsibilities to support the staff as patient volume grew. The volume of requests to the rehabilitation-based prone team generally increased to week 4 and has, since then, declined. Key points for successful implementation included identification of rehabilitation therapists with intensive care unit experience and leadership qualities, multidisciplinary collaboration, availability of needed positioning devices and supplies to protect the integument, and well-defined roles of all disciplines participating in position change process. Conclusion The description of the development, operations, evolution, and utilization of a rehabilitation therapist prone team acts as a guide for future development and implementation. Impact This case report is one of the first reports of a rehabilitation-based prone team established to assist with positioning patients in prone as an intervention for ARDS related to coronavirus disease 2019 and will help guide other institutions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3508
Author(s):  
Enric Barbeta ◽  
Adrian Ceccato ◽  
Antoni Artigas ◽  
Miquel Ferrer ◽  
Laia Fernández ◽  
...  

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a well-known complication of patients on invasive mechanical ventilation. The main cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is pneumonia. ARDS can occur in patients with community-acquired or nosocomial pneumonia. Data regarding ARDS incidence, related pathogens, and specific outcomes in patients with VAP is limited. This is a cohort study in which patients with VAP were evaluated in an 800-bed tertiary teaching hospital between 2004 and 2016. Clinical outcomes, microbiological and epidemiological data were assessed among those who developed ARDS and those who did not. Forty-one (13.6%) out of 301 VAP patients developed ARDS. Patients who developed ARDS were younger and presented with higher prevalence of chronic liver disease. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most frequently isolated pathogen, but without any difference between groups. Appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment was prescribed to ARDS patients as frequently as to those without ARDS. Ninety-day mortality did not significantly vary among patients with or without ARDS. Additionally, patients with ARDS did not have significantly higher intensive care unit (ICU) and 28-day mortality, ICU, and hospital length of stay, ventilation-free days, and duration of mechanical ventilation. In summary, ARDS deriving from VAP occurs in 13.6% of patients. Although significant differences in clinical outcomes were not observed between both groups, further studies with a higher number of patients are needed due to the possibility of the study being underpowered.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 418-421
Author(s):  
Christopher Werlein ◽  
Peter Braubach ◽  
Vincent Schmidt ◽  
Nicolas J. Dickgreber ◽  
Bruno Märkl ◽  
...  

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGDie aktuelle COVID-19-Pandemie verzeichnet mittlerweile über 18 Millionen Erkrankte und 680 000 Todesfälle weltweit. Für die hohe Variabilität sowohl der Schweregrade des klinischen Verlaufs als auch der Organmanifestationen fanden sich zunächst keine pathophysiologisch zufriedenstellenden Erklärungen. Bei schweren Krankheitsverläufen steht in der Regel eine pulmonale Symptomatik im Vordergrund, meist unter dem Bild eines „acute respiratory distress syndrome“ (ARDS). Darüber hinaus zeigen sich jedoch in unterschiedlicher Häufigkeit Organmanifestationen in Haut, Herz, Nieren, Gehirn und anderen viszeralen Organen, die v. a. durch eine Perfusionsstörung durch direkte oder indirekte Gefäßwandschädigung zu erklären sind. Daher wird COVID-19 als vaskuläre Multisystemerkrankung aufgefasst. Vor dem Hintergrund der multiplen Organmanifestationen sind klinisch-pathologische Obduktionen eine wichtige Grundlage der Entschlüsselung der Pathomechanismen von COVID-19 und auch ein Instrument zur Generierung und Hinterfragung innovativer Therapieansätze.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document