Background The worldwide spread of a novel coronavirus disease has led to a near total stop of nonurgent, elective surgeries across all specialties in most affected countries. In the field of aesthetic surgery, the selfimposed moratorium for all aesthetic surgery procedures recommended by most international scientific societies has been adopted by many surgeons worldwide and resulted in a huge socioeconomic impact for most private practices and clinics. An important question still unanswered in most countries is when and how should elective/aesthetic procedures be scheduled again and what kind of organizational changes are necessary to protect patients and healthcare workers when clinics and practices reopen. Defining manageable, evidence-based protocols for testing, surgical/ procedural risk mitigation and clinical flow management/contamination management will be paramount for the safety of non-urgent surgical procedures. Methods We conducted a MEDLINE/PubMed research for all available publications on COVID-19 and surgery and COVID-19 and anesthesia. Articles and referenced literature describing possible procedural impact factors leading to exacerbation of the clinical evolution of COVID-19positive patients were identified to perform risk stratification for elective surgery. Based on these impact factors, considerations for patient selection, choice of procedural complexity, duration of procedure, type of anesthesia, etc., are discussed in this article and translated into algorithms for surgical/anesthesia risk management and clinical management. Current recommendations and published protocols on contamination control, avoidance of crosscontamination and procedural patient flow are reviewed. A COVID-19 testing guideline protocol for patients planning to undergo elective aesthetic surgery is presented and recommendations are made regarding adaptation of current patient information/informed consent forms and patient health questionnaires. Conclusion The COVID-19 crisis has led to unprecedented challenges in the acute management of the crisis, and the wave only recently seems to flatten out in some countries. The adaptation of surgical and procedural steps for a riskminimizing management of potential COVID-19-positive patients seeking to undergo elective aesthetic procedures in the wake of that wave will present the next big challenge for the aesthetic surgery community. We propose a clinical algorithm to enhance patient safety in elective surgery in the context of COVID-19 and to minimize cross-contamination between healthcare workers and patients. New evidence-based guidelines regarding surgical risk stratification, testing, and clinical flow management/contamination management are proposed. We believe that only the continuous development and broad implementation of guidelines like the ones proposed in this paper will allow an early reintegration of all aesthetic procedures into the scope of surgical care currently performed and to prepare
Background Prone positioning is currently applied in time-limited daily sessions up to 24 h which determines that most patients require several sessions. Although longer prone sessions have been reported, there is scarce evidence about the feasibility and safety of such approach. We analyzed feasibility and safety of a continuous prolonged prone positioning strategy implemented nationwide, in a large cohort of COVID-19 patients in Chile. Methods Retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), conducted in 15 Intensive Care Units, which adhered to a national protocol of continuous prone sessions ≥ 48 h and until PaO2:FiO2 increased above 200 mm Hg. The number and extension of prone sessions were registered, along with relevant physiologic data and adverse events related to prone positioning. The cohort was stratified according to the first prone session duration: Group A, 2–3 days; Group B, 4–5 days; and Group C, > 5 days. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess whether the duration of prone sessions could impact safety. Results We included 417 patients who required a first prone session of 4 (3–5) days, of whom 318 (76.3%) received only one session. During the first prone session the main adverse event was grade 1–2 pressure sores in 97 (23.9%) patients; severe adverse events were infrequent with 17 non-scheduled extubations (4.2%). 90-day mortality was 36.2%. Ninety-eight patients (24%) were classified as group C; they exhibited a more severe ARDS at baseline, as reflected by lower PaO2:FiO2 ratio and higher ventilatory ratio, and had a higher rate of pressure sores (44%) and higher 90-day mortality (48%). However, after adjustment for severity and several relevant confounders, prone session duration was not associated with mortality or pressure sores. Conclusions Nationwide implementation of a continuous prolonged prone positioning strategy for COVID-19 ARDS patients was feasible. Minor pressure sores were frequent but within the ranges previously described, while severe adverse events were infrequent. The duration of prone session did not have an adverse effect on safety.
The number of oncological patients (OP) admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for sepsis/septic shock has dramatically increased in recent years. The definition of septic shock has been modified, adding hyperlactatemia as a severity biomarker for mortality. However, it remains poorly reported in septic OP. We performed a retrospective analysis from a prospective database of sepsis/septic shock patients admitted to our ICU between September 2017 and September 2019 and followed until day 90. We identified 251 patients and 31.9% had active oncological comorbidity, mainly solid tumor (81.3%). Septic shock criteria were met for 112 (44.6%). Hyperlactatemia was observed in 136 (54.2%) patients and this was associated with a lower survival rate. Overall 90-day mortality was 15.1%. In OP vs. non-OP, hyperlactatemia was more frequent (65% vs. 49.1%, p = 0.013) and associated with lower survival (65.4% vs. 85.7%, p = 0.046). In OP, poor performance status was also associated with lower survival (HR 7.029 [1.998–24.731], p = 0.002) In an adjusted analysis, cancer was associated with lower 90-day survival (HR 2.690 [1.402–5.160], p = 0.003). In conclusion, septic OP remains a high mortality risk group in whom lactate levels and performance status could help with better risk stratification.
PURPOSECancer is in the process of changing to become a chronic disease; therefore, an increasing number of oncologic patients (OPs) are being admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for supportive care of disease or therapy-related complications. We compare the short- and long-term outcomes of critically ill mechanically ventilated OPs with those of their nononcologic counterparts.PATIENTS AND METHODSWe performed a prospective study of patients admitted to our ICU between October 2017 and February 2019. Demographic, physiologic, laboratory, clinical, and treatment data were obtained. The primary outcome was survival at 28 days and at the end of the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes were survival according to acute severity scoring (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and Charlson comorbidity index.RESULTSA total of 1,490 patients were admitted during the study period; 358 patients (24%) were OPs, and 100 of these OPs were supported with mechanical ventilation. Seventy-three percent of OPs had an ECOG performances status of 0 or 1, and 90% had solid tumors. Reason for admission to the ICU was postoperative admission in 44 patients and neutropenic infection in 10 patients. The follow-up period was 148 days (range, 42 to 363 days). Survival at 28 days was similar between OPs and nononcologic patients and associated with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. However, long-term survival was lower in OPs compared with nononcologic patients (52% v 76%, respectively; P < .001) and associated with poor ECOG performance status.CONCLUSIONShort-term survival of critically ill, mechanically ventilated OPs is similar to that of their nononcologic counterparts and is determined by the severity of the critical illness.
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.