Objective: We compared two methods of delivering high-flow gas therapy by nasal cannula, applied immediately after planned endotracheal extubations of NICU patients.Study design and methods: Thirty NICU patients who were about to be extubated from mechanical ventilation were randomized into two groups; Group 1 received Vapotherm s for the first 24 h after extubation, then standard high-flow nasal cannula for the next 24 h, and Group 2 received standard high-flow therapy for the first 24 h, then Vapotherm s for the next 24 h. At 24 h after extubation and again 48 h after extubation, a neonatologist who was not aware which modality the patient had been receiving examined the nasal mucosa and applied a scoring system. A research nurse who was unaware of the modality abstracted respiratory rates and respiratory effort scores from a specific study-bedside record. The experimental design was such that a patient could 'fail' extubation either by reintubation for mechanical ventilation, or by rescue to the opposite modality before completing the 24-h test period.Results: Fifteen patients were randomized to Group 1 and 15 to Group 2. No differences were apparent between the groups in birth weight, gestational age, age at study entry, gender or underlying pulmonary disorder. Respiratory rates were similar while on Vapotherm s (52±13 breaths/min, mean±s.d.) and high-flow (54±14/min). At 24 h after starting the modality, those on Vapotherm s had more normal examinations of the nasal mucosa (2.7±1.2 vs 7.8±1.7, P<0.0005) and lower respiratory effort scores (1.2±0.6 vs 2.0±0.9, P<0.05) than did those on high-flow. No patients failed while on Vapotherm s , but seven failed while on high-flow (two reintubations and five rescue switches to Vapotherm s , P<0.005).Conclusions: Among NICU patients immediately following extubation, Vapotherm s performed better than a standard high-flow nasal cannula in maintaining a normal appearing nasal mucosa, a lower respiratory effort score, and averting reintubation.
This large-scale cohort investigation of DFIs in the cervical spine describes radiographic features that distinguish facet dislocation from subluxation, and associates highly reproducible anatomical and clinical indices to the occurrence of concomitant SCI.
Early decompression may improve neurological outcome after spinal cord injury (SCI), but is often difficult to achieve because of logistical issues. The aims of this study were to 1) determine the time to decompression in cases of isolated cervical SCI in Australia and New Zealand and 2) determine where substantial delays occur as patients move from the accident scene to surgery. Data were extracted from medical records of patients aged 15-70 years with C3-T1 traumatic SCI between 2010 and 2013. A total of 192 patients were included. The median time from accident scene to decompression was 21 h, with the fastest times associated with closed reduction (6 h). A significant decrease in the time to decompression occurred from 2010 (31 h) to 2013 (19 h, p = 0.008). Patients undergoing direct surgical hospital admission had a significantly lower time to decompression, compared with patients undergoing pre-surgical hospital admission (12 h vs. 26 h, p < 0.0001). Medical stabilization and radiological investigation appeared not to influence the timing of surgery. The time taken to organize the operating theater following surgical hospital admission was a further factor delaying decompression (12.5 h). There was a relationship between the timing of decompression and the proportion of patients demonstrating substantial recovery (2-3 American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grades). In conclusion, the time of cervical spine decompression markedly improved over the study period. Neurological recovery appeared to be promoted by rapid decompression. Direct surgical hospital admission, rapid organization of theater, and where possible, use of closed reduction, are likely to be effective strategies to reduce the time to decompression.
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.