We performed an open, prospective, randomized clinical trial in 51 patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 72 h, in order to evaluate the impact of using either invasive (protected specimen brush [PSB] and bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL] via fiberoptic bronchoscopy) or noninvasive (quantitative endotracheal aspirates [QEA]) diagnostic methods on the morbidity and mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A patients (n = 24) underwent QEA, PSB, and BAL; Group B patients (n = 27) underwent only QEA cultures. Empiric antibiotic treatment was given according to the attending physician and was modified according to the results of cultures and sensitivity in Group A using PSB and BAL results and in Group B based upon QEA cultures. Bacteriologic cultures were done quantitatively for EA, PSB, and BAL. Thresholds of > or = 10(5), > or = 10(3), and > or = 10(4) CFU/ml were used for QEA, PSB, and BAL, respectively. Microbial cultures from Group A patients were positive in 16 (67%) BAL samples, 14 (58%) PSB samples, and 16 (67%) QEA samples. In Group B patients, QEA microbial cultures yielded positive results in 20 of 27 (74%) samples. In Group A, there was total agreement between culture results of the three techniques on 17 (71%) occasions. In five (21%) cases, QEA coincided with either BAL or PBS. In only two (8%) cases, QEA cultures did not coincide with either PSB or BAL. No cases of positive BAL or PSB cultures had negative QEA cultures. Initial antibiotic treatment was modified in 10 (42%) patients from Group A and in four (16%) patients from Group B (p < 0.05). The observed crude mortality rate was 11 of 24 (46%) in Group A, and 7 of 27 (26%) in Group B, whereas the adjusted mortality rates (observed crude minus predicted at admission) for Groups A and B were 29 and 10%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences when comparing crude and adjusted mortality rates of Groups A and B. There were no differences in mortality between both groups when comparing pneumonia, considering together Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. (Group A, 33% versus Group B, 27%). There were no differences between Groups A and B with regard to ICU stay duration and total duration of mechanical ventilation. In this pilot study, the impact of bronchoscopy was to lead to more frequent antibiotic changes with no change in mortality. Further studies with larger population samples are warranted to confirm these findings.
Background The question of an optimal strategy and outcomes in COVID-19 tracheostomy has not been answered yet. The critical focus in our case study is to evaluate the outcomes of tracheostomy on intubated COVID-19 patients. Methods A multicentric prospective observational study of 1890 COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy across 120 hospitals was conducted over 7 weeks in Spain (March 28 to May 15, 2020). Data were collected with an innovative approach: instant messaging via WhatsApp. Outcome measurements: complications, achieved weaning and decannulation and survival. Results We performed 1,461 surgical (81.3%) and 429 percutaneous tracheostomies. Median timing of tracheostomy was 12 days (4-42 days) since orotracheal intubation. A close follow-up of 1616/1890 (85.5%) patients at the cutoff time of 1-month follow-up showed that in 842 (52.1%) patients, weaning was achieved, while 391 (24.2%) were still under mechanical ventilation and 383 (23.7%) patients had died from COVID-19. Decannulation among those in whom weaning was successful (n = 842) was achieved in 683 (81%) patients. Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest cohort of COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy. The critical focus is the unprecedented amount of tracheostomies: 1890 in 7 weeks. Weaning could be achieved in over half of the patients with follow-up. Almost one out of four tracheotomized patients died from COVID-19.
To determine whether elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is associated with a higher rate of enteral nutrition-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications; to assess the value of IAP as a predictor of enteral nutrition (EN) intolerance. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients on mechanical ventilation requiring at least 5 days of EN were recruited for a prospective, observational, non-interventional, multicenter study. EN was performed and GI complications were managed with an established protocol. IAP was determined via a urinary catheter. Patients who developed any GI complications were considered as presenting EN intolerance. Variables related to EN, IAP and GI complications were monitored daily. Statistical analysis compared patients without GI complications (group A) vs. GI complications (group B). 247 patients were recruited from 28 participating ICUs (group A: 119, group B: 128). No differences between groups were recorded. Patients in group B (p < 0.001) spent more days on EN (8.1 ± 8.4 vs. 18.1 ± 13.7), on mechanical ventilation (8.0 ± 7.7 vs. 19.3 ± 14.9) and in the ICU (12.3 ± 11.4 vs. 24.8 ± 17.5). IAP prior to the GI complication was (14.3 ± 3.1 vs. 15.8 ± 4.8) (p < 0.003). The best IAP value identified for EN intolerance was 14 mmHg but it had low sensitivity and specificity. Although a higher IAP was associated with EN intolerance, IAP alone did not emerge as a good predictor of EN intolerance in critically ill patients.
Although visceral leishmaniasis is often fatal in the developing world, Leishmania-attributable deaths in Europe are relatively rare and nowadays almost always linked to HIV infection. In Spain, however, a HIV-negative man with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and prednisone treatment was recently hospitalized because of hypotension and asthenia. Although the patient was afebrile, a bone-marrow aspirate, collected after thrombo- and leuco-cytopenia had been observed, was found to contain huge numbers of amastigotes. A course of antileishmanial treatment with meglumine antimoniate was initiated but the patient went into refractory shock and died within 6 h. The significance of this case, in terms of the routine investigation and treatment of immunosuppressed patients who may have leishmaniasis, is discussed.
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.