Background Since December 2019 the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been burdening all health systems worldwide. However, pulmonary and extrapulmonary sequelae of COVID-19 after recovery from the acute disease are unknown. Material and methods Hospitalized COVID-19 patients not requiring mechanical ventilation were included and followed 6 weeks after discharge. Body plethysmography, lung diffusion capacity (DLco), blood gas analysis (ABG), 6-min walk test (6MWT), echocardiography, and laboratory tests were performed. Quality of life (QoL), depression, and anxiety were assessed using validated questionnaires. Results 33 patients with severe disease were included. Patients were discharged without prophylactic anticoagulation. At follow-up there were no thromboembolic complications in any patient. 11 patients (33%) had dyspnea, 11 (33%) had cough, and 15 (45%) suffered from symptoms of fatigue. Pulmonary function tests including ABG did not reveal any limitations (TLC: median = 94% of predicted [IQR:85–105]; VC: 93% [78–101]; FEV1: 95% [72–103]; FEV1/FVC 79% [76–85]; PaO2: 72 mmHg [67–79]; PaCO2: 38 mmHg (Xu et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020; Ware, 2013) [35-38], except for slightly reduced DLco (77% [69–95]). There were no echocardiographic impairments. 6MWT distance was reduced in most patients without oxygen desaturation. According to standardized questionnaires, patients suffered from reduced QoL, mainly due to decreased mobility (SGRQ activity score: 54 [19–78]). There were no indicators for depression or anxiety (PHQ-9: 7 [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] ( Mizumoto et al., 2020; Kimball et al., 2020; Sakurai et al., 2020; Tabata et al., 2020; Wu and McGoogan, 2020; Richardson et al., 2020; Lewnard et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020) [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] 4-11, GAD-7: 4 [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] ( Lu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020; Mizumoto et al., 2020; Kimball et al., 2020; Sakurai et al., 2020; Tabata et al., 2020; Wu and McGoogan, 2020; Richardson et al., 2020) [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , ...
German Airway League inhalation technique training videos were easy to understand and effectively improved inhalation technique in patients with airway diseases.
Background: Endobronchial administration of local anesthetics such as lidocaine is often used for cough suppression during bronchoscopy. To achieve a better distribution of lidocaine in the tracheobronchial tree, spray catheters have been developed, allowing nebulization of the local anesthetic solution. However, there are little data on the efficacy and safety of this approach, or on the consumption of sedative drugs and lidocaine during nebulized administration. Objectives: To investigate the tolerability of nebulized lidocaine compared to conventional lidocaine administration via syringe through the working channel of the bronchoscope in patients undergoing bronchoscopy. Consumption of sedative drugs and lidocaine was also compared between the two lidocaine administration approaches. Methods: Patients requiring bronchoscopy with endobronchial or transbronchial biopsy were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine either via syringe or via nebulizer. Endpoints were consumption of lidocaine and sedative drugs, as well as patient tolerance and safety. Results: Thirty patients were included, 15 in each group. Patients in the nebulizer group required lower doses of endobronchial lidocaine (184.7 ± 67.98 vs. 250.7 ± 21.65 mg, p = 0.0045) and intravenous fentanyl (0.033 ± 0.041 vs. 0.067 ± 0.045 mg, p = 0.0236) than those in the syringe group; midazolam or propofol dosages did not differ between the two groups. In addition, there were no between-group differences in patient tolerance or safety (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: Endobronchial administration of lidocaine during bronchoscopy via nebulizer was found to be well tolerated and safe and was associated with reduced lidocaine and fentanyl dosages compared to administration via syringe.
Although patients who recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may have prolonged disabilities, follow-up data of those who have survived COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still very scarce. Therefore, COVID-19-ARDS survivors requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were followed six months after discharge. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs), 6-min walk test (6MWT) and echocardiography were performed. Quality of life (QoL), depression and anxiety were assessed using validated questionnaires. Patients were compared based on respiratory mechanics and CT-phenotype during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Eighteen patients were included (61 ± 7 years; ICU-stay: 34 ± 16 days; IMV: 30 ± 15 days). At follow-up (197 ± 15 days after discharge), PFTs did not reveal significant limitations (VC: 92 ± 16%; FEV1: 92 ± 20%; DLco/VA: 81 ± 16%). Cardiac systolic function was normal in all patients, but 50% of them had diastolic dysfunction. 6MWT was under the lower limit of normal in only two patients. Eight patients (44%) reported tiredness, six (33%) suffered from fatigue and one patient (6%) had depression and anxiety. Surprisingly, patients with worse respiratory mechanics during IMV reported fewer symptoms and less exertional dyspnea at follow-up. In conclusion, patients with COVID-19-ARDS have the possibility to fully recover regarding pulmonary function and exercise capacity, which seems to be independent of disease severity during ICU stay.
The anesthetic procedure we present offers a safe alternative method to surgeons who are able to do surgical procedures on a mobile eye.
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.