Objective Epiglottitis is typically considered a pediatric disease; however, there is growing evidence that the incidence of adult epiglottitis has changed since the introduction of the Haemophilus influenzae vaccine. The literature is composed of multiple small series with differing findings. To date, there has been no attempt to collaborate evidence on predictors of airway intervention in this disease. Methods The population of interest was adults with a diagnosis of epiglottitis. The primary outcome in this review was incidence of airway intervention. A comprehensive literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and Embase databases, and a separate random‐effects model meta‐analysis was undertaken for all outcome data. Moderator tests for comparison between prevaccine and postvaccine estimates were made, and absolute risk difference (RD) and relative risk (RR) calculations were made for all predictors of airway intervention. Results Thirty studies and a total of 10,148 patients were finally included for meta‐analysis. A significant decrease in airway intervention was seen post vaccine introduction introduction from 18.8% to 10.9% (P = 0.01). The presence of an abscess (RD 0.27, P = 0.04; RR 2.45, P < 0.001), stridor (RD 0.64, P < 0.001; RR 7.15, P < 0.001), or a history of diabetes mellitus (RD 0.11, P = 0.02; RR 2.15, P = 0.01) were associated with need for airway intervention. Conclusion In the postvaccine era, clinicians should expect to have to secure airways in 10.9% of cases. The presence of an epiglottic abscess, stridor, or a history of diabetes mellitus are the most reliable clinical features associated with need for airway intervention. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 130:465–473, 2020
We sought to establish the effect of introducing a multidisciplinary tracheotomy management team (MDT). Tracheotomies are high-cost interventions with potentially devastating complications. Multidisciplinary teams have been introduced in many hospitals with the aim of reducing complications, however, data supporting them are lacking. There is currently insufficient evidence to conclude MDTs reduce length of hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and there is little information on cost analysis. A chart review identified patients who had a tracheotomy inserted at a major metropolitan teaching hospital with an acute spinal medicine service 2 years before and after the MDT was implemented. The primary outcome was time to decannulation. Other outcomes included tracheotomy complications, the proportion of patients decannulated, length of ICU and hospital stay, and admission cost. Our search identified 174 (78 prior and 96 post-MDT) patients. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. There was no difference in time to decannulation, the decannulation rate, or the length of hospital or ICU stay. Complication rates were low in both groups. There was an increase in the proportion of patients who received speaking valves and a reduction in cost of admission in a subgroup of patients who did not undergo head and neck surgery. There is insufficient evidence to support the widespread introduction of tracheotomy MDTs. Institutions considering introducing a tracheotomy team should carefully consider their case-mix, volume, and available resources as well as the structure and responsibilities of the team, and the timing of its activities within the working week. The potential benefits of MDTs including teaching of staff, and collaboration of teams should be acknowledged. Given the potentially significant implications for cost to the health system, a randomized trial is needed to guide policy in this area.
Transoral drainage of peritonsillar abscess during the COVID-19 pandemic is a high-risk procedure due to potential aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2. This case describes conservative management of peritonsillar abscess in a 21-year-old male with COVID-19.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.