Background The effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rates is not established. The aim of this trial was to investigate if a protocol for awake prone positioning reduces the rate of endotracheal intubation compared with standard care among patients with moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation for respiratory support and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 20 kPa were randomly assigned to a protocol targeting 16 h prone positioning per day or standard care. The primary endpoint was intubation within 30 days. Secondary endpoints included duration of awake prone positioning, 30-day mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, use of noninvasive ventilation, organ support and adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to futility. Results Of 141 patients assessed for eligibility, 75 were randomized of whom 39 were allocated to the control group and 36 to the prone group. Within 30 days after enrollment, 13 patients (33%) were intubated in the control group versus 12 patients (33%) in the prone group (HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.46–2.21), P = 0.99). Median prone duration was 3.4 h [IQR 1.8–8.4] in the control group compared with 9.0 h per day [IQR 4.4–10.6] in the prone group (P = 0.014). Nine patients (23%) in the control group had pressure sores compared with two patients (6%) in the prone group (difference − 18% (95% CI − 2 to − 33%); P = 0.032). There were no other differences in secondary outcomes between groups. Conclusions The implemented protocol for awake prone positioning increased duration of prone positioning, but did not reduce the rate of intubation in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared to standard care. Trial registration ISRCTN54917435. Registered 15 June 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN54917435).
Safe and reliable venous access is mandatory in modern health care, but central venous catheters (CVCs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, This paper describes current Swedish guidelines for clinical management of CVCs The guidelines supply updated recommendations that may be useful in other countries as well. Literature retrieval in the Cochrane and Pubmed databases, of papers written in English or Swedish and pertaining to CVC management, was done by members of a task force of the Swedish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Consensus meetings were held throughout the review process to allow all parts of the guidelines to be embraced by all contributors. All of the content was carefully scored according to criteria by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. We aimed at producing useful and reliable guidelines on bleeding diathesis, vascular approach, ultrasonic guidance, catheter tip positioning, prevention and management of associated trauma and infection, and specific training and follow-up. A structured patient history focused on bleeding should be taken prior to insertion of a CVCs. The right internal jugular vein should primarily be chosen for insertion of a wide-bore CVC. Catheter tip positioning in the right atrium or lower third of the superior caval vein should be verified for long-term use. Ultrasonic guidance should be used for catheterisation by the internal jugular or femoral veins and may also be used for insertion via the subclavian veins or the veins of the upper limb. The operator inserting a CVC should wear cap, mask, and sterile gown and gloves. For long-term intravenous access, tunnelled CVC or subcutaneous venous ports are preferred. Intravenous position of the catheter tip should be verified by clinical or radiological methods after insertion and before each use. Simulator-assisted training of CVC insertion should precede bedside training in patients. Units inserting and managing CVC should have quality assertion programmes for implementation and follow-up of routines, teaching, training and clinical outcome. Clinical guidelines on a wide range of relevant topics have been introduced, based on extensive literature retrieval, to facilitate effective and safe management of CVCs.
We report the case of a 38-year-old man who presented to the emergency department with fever, myalgia, nausea, vomiting, dry cough, breathlessness and abdominal pain. He was admitted due to hypoxaemia and was diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and was subsequently referred to the intensive care unit for intubation and mechanical ventilation. Severe rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury developed 4 days later and were suspected after noticing discolouration of the urine and a marked increase in plasma myoglobin levels. Treatment included hydration, forced diuresis and continuous renal replacement therapy. In addition to the coronavirus disease acute respiratory distress syndrome, he was diagnosed with possible SARS-CoV-2-induced myositis with severe rhabdomyolysis and kidney failure. The patient survived and was discharged from intensive care after 12 days, returning home 23 days after hospitalisation, fully mobilised with a partially restored kidney function.
Background. Reliable central vein access is a fundamental issue in modern advanced oncological care. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of complications and patient perception regarding central vein access ports. Methods. We prospectively studied 249 single lumen access ports implanted between 1 July 2008 and 15 March 2010 in a mixed patient population at a 500-bed secondary level hospital in Sweden. We determined the number of catheter days, infection rate and mechanical complications, as well as patient satisfaction regarding the access port, over a six-month follow-up period. Results. Two hundred and forty-four different patients received 249 ports yielding a total of 37 763 catheter days. Ultrasound and fl uoroscopic guidance was used in 98% of procedures. Vein access was obtained percutanously by an anaesthesiologist in all cases. There was no case of pneumo-or haemothorax. The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection, was 0.05/1000 catheter days and the incidence of pocket/tunnel infection was 0.39/1000 catheter days. Clinically apparent deep vein thrombosis occurred in four patients (1.6%). Patient satisfaction was overall high. Conclusion. These results confi rm that our team-based approach with written easily accessible evidence-based guidelines and a structured education programme leads to a very low complication rate and a high degree of patient satisfaction.
Background: The effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rates is not established. The aim of this trial was to investigate if a protocol for awake prone positioning reduces the rate of endotracheal intubation compared with standard care among patients with moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation for respiratory support and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 20 kPa were randomly assigned to a protocol targeting 16 hours prone positioning per day or standard care. The primary endpoint was intubation within 30 days. Secondary endpoints included duration of awake prone positioning, 30-day mortality, ventilator free days, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, use of noninvasive ventilation, organ support and adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to futility. Results: Of 141 patients assessed for eligibility, 75 were randomized of whom 39 were allocated to the control group and 36 to the prone group. Within 30 days after enrollment, 13 patients (33%) were intubated in the control group versus 12 patients (33%) in the prone group (HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.46-2.21), P=0.99). Median prone duration was 3.4 hours [IQR 1.8-8.4] in the control group compared with 9.0 hours per day [IQR 4.4-10.6] in the prone group (P=0.014). Nine patients (23%) in the control group had pressure sores compared with two patients (6%) in the prone group (difference -18% (95% CI -2% to -33%); P=0.032). There were no other differences in secondary outcomes between groups.Conclusions: A protocol for awake prone positioning increased duration of prone positioning, but did not reduce the rate of intubation in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared to standard care.Trial registration: ISRCTN54918435. Registered 15 June 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN54917435)
Background: A reliable central venous access device is a cornerstone in the treatment of cancer. Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and totally implanted chest ports (PORT) are commonly used for the delivery of chemotherapy. Both types of catheter can cause adverse events such as catheter-related deep venous thrombosis (CR-DVT), infection and mechanical complications. Method:We conducted a randomized controlled trial including 399 patients with cancer and performed a health economic evaluation investigating the cost related to PICCs and PORTs using several clinically relevant dimensions from a healthcare perspective. The cost was determined using process and cost estimate models. Result:PICCs are associated with a higher total cost when compared with PORTs.Combining the costs of all categories, the prize per inserted device was 824.58 EUR for PICC and 662.34 EUR for PORT. When adjusting for total catheter dwell time the price was 6.58 EUR/day for PICC and 3.01 EUR/day for PORT. The difference in CR-DVT was the main contributor to the difference in cost. The daily cost of PICC is approximately twice to that of PORT. Conclusion:We have demonstrated that the cost from a healthcare perspective is higher in cancer patients receiving a PICC than to those with a PORT. The difference is driven mainly by the cost related to the management of adverse events. Our findings are relevant to anaesthetists, oncologists and vascular access clinicians and should be considered when choosing vascular access device prior to chemotherapy.
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.