Background Spontaneous pneumothorax is an uncommon complication of COVID-19 viral pneumonia. The exact incidence and risk factors are still unknown. Herein we review the incidence and outcomes of pneumothorax in over 3000 patients admitted to our institution for suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods We performed a retrospective review of COVID-19 cases admitted to our hospital. Patients who were diagnosed with a spontaneous pneumothorax were identified to calculate the incidence of this event. Their clinical characteristics were thoroughly documented. Data regarding their clinical outcomes were gathered. Each case was presented as a brief synopsis. Results Three thousand three hundred sixty-eight patients were admitted to our institution between March 1st, 2020 and June 8th, 2020 for suspected COVID 19 pneumonia, 902 patients were nasopharyngeal swab positive. Six cases of COVID-19 patients who developed spontaneous pneumothorax were identified (0.66%). Their baseline imaging showed diffuse bilateral ground-glass opacities and consolidations, mostly in the posterior and peripheral lung regions. 4/6 cases were associated with mechanical ventilation. All patients required placement of a chest tube. In all cases, mortality (66.6%) was not directly related to the pneumothorax. Conclusion Spontaneous pneumothorax is a rare complication of COVID-19 viral pneumonia and may occur in the absence of mechanical ventilation. Clinicians should be vigilant about the diagnosis and treatment of this complication.

Background Infection with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been associated with a hypercoagulable state. Emerging data from China and Europe have consistently shown an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to identify the VTE incidence and early predictors of VTE at our high-volume tertiary care center. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of 147 patients who had been admitted to Temple University Hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from April 1, 2020 to April 27, 2020. We first identified the VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]) incidence in our cohort. The VTE and no-VTE groups were compared by univariable analysis for demographics, comorbidities, laboratory data, and treatment outcomes. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the early predictors of VTE. Results The 147 patients (20.9% of all admissions) admitted to a designated COVID-19 unit at Temple University Hospital with a high clinical suspicion of acute VTE had undergone testing for VTE using computed tomography pulmonary angiography and/or extremity venous duplex ultrasonography. The overall incidence of VTE was 17% (25 of 147). Of the 25 patients, 16 had had acute PE, 14 had had acute DVT, and 5 had had both PE and DVT. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio, 3.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-9.55) and the admission D-dimer level ≥1500 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio, 3.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-9.78) were independent markers associated with VTE. The all-cause mortality in the VTE group was greater than that in the non-VTE group (48% vs 22%; P = .007). Conclusion Our study represents one of the earliest reported from the United States on the incidence rate of VTE in patients with COVID-19. Patients with a high clinical suspicion and the identified risk factors (invasive mechanical ventilation, admission D-dimer level ≥1500 ng/mL) should be considered for early VTE testing. We did not screen all patients admitted for VTE; therefore, the true incidence of VTE could have been underestimated. Our findings require confirmation in future prospective studies.

Rationale: Patients with combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE) may develop acute exacerbations of IPF (AE-IPF) or COPD (AE-COPD). The incidence and the characteristics of exacerbations in patients with CPFE (e.g., COPD vs IPF) have not been well described. Objectives: To compare the incidence and rate of exacerbations in patients with CPFE vs. IPF and evaluate their effect on clinical outcomes. Methods: Comprehensive clinical data from CPFE and IPF patients were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline characteristics including lung function data, oxygen requirements, and pulmonary hemodynamics, were collected. Acute exacerbation events in both groups were defined clinically and radiographically. In the CPFE group, two patterns of exacerbations were identified. AE-COPD was defined clinically by symptoms of severe airflow obstruction causing respiratory failure and requiring hospitalization. Radiographic data were also defined based on previously published literature. AE-IPF was defined clinically as an acute hypoxic respiratory failure, requiring hospitalization and treatment with high dose corticosteroids. Radiographically, patients had to have a change in baseline imaging including presence of ground-glass opacities, interlobular septal thickening or new consolidations; that is not fully explained by other etiologies. Results: Eighty-five CPFE patients were retrospectively compared to 112 IPF patients. Of 112 patients with IPF; 45 had AE-IPF preceding lung transplant (40.18%) compared to 12 patients in the CPFE group (14.1%) (p < 0.05). 10 patients in the CPFE group experienced AE-COPD (11.7%). Patients with AE-IPF had higher mortality and more likely required mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared to patients with AE-COPD, whether their underlying disease was IPF or CPFE. Conclusions: CPFE patients may experience either AE-IPF or AE-COPD. Patients with CPFE and AE-COPD had better outcomes, requiring less intensive therapy compared to patients with AE-IPF regardless if underlying CPFE or IPF was present. These data suggest that the type of acute exacerbation, AE-COPD vs AE-IPF, has important implications for the treatment and prognosis of patients with CPFE.

Background: COVID-19 can lead to acute respiratory failure and an exaggerated inflammatory response. Studies have suggested promising outcomes using monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-1β (Anakinra) or IL6 (Tocilizumab), however no head to head comparison was done between the two treatments. Herein, we report our experience in treating COVID-19 pneumonia associated with cytokine storm with either subcutaneous Anakinra given concomitantly with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), or intravenous Tocilizumab. Methods: Comprehensive clinical and laboratory data from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted at our hospital between March and May 2020 were collected. Patients who received either Anakinra/ IVIG or Tocilizumab were selected. Baseline characteristics including oxygen therapy, respiratory status evaluation using ROX index, clinical assessment using NEWS score and laboratory data were collected. Outcomes included mortality, intubation, ICU admission and length of stay. In addition, we compared the change in ROX index, NEWS score and inflammatory markers at days 7 and 14 post initiation of therapy. Results: 84 consecutive patients who received either treatment (51 in the Anakinra/ IVIG group and 33 in the Tocilizumab group) were retrospectively studied. Baseline inflammatory markers were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference regarding to death (21.6% vs 15.2%, p 0.464), intubation (15.7% vs 24.2%, p 0.329), ICU need (57.1% vs 48.5%, p 0.475) or length of stay (13+9.6 vs 14.9+11.6, p 0.512) in the Anakinra/IVIG and Tocilizumab, respectively. Additionally, the rate of improvement in ROX index, NEWS score and inflammatory markers was similar in both groups at days 7 and 14. Furthermore, there was no difference in the incidence of superinfection in both groups. Conclusion: Treating COVID-19 pneumonia associated with cytokine storm features with either subcutaneous Anakinra/IVIG or intravenous Tocilizumab is associated with improved clinical outcomes in most subjects. The choice of treatment does not appear to affect morbidity or mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our study findings. Funding: None.

Emphysema is associated with irreversible loss of lung compliance leading to gas trapping and hyperinflation. Surgical lung volume reduction has proven to improve lung function, exercise capacity, cardiac health and survival in patients with advanced emphysema; however, this procedure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) has emerged as an alternative approach for these patients. In this article, we review the different techniques used for the purpose of this procedure, its advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we discuss in length valve therapy and the studies that led to its recent FDA approval. Finally, we provide thought-provoking challenges that may be topics for further future investigation to enhance the efficacy and benefit of this technique.

High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) is a unique system that delivers humidified, heated oxygen-enriched air via nasal cannula at high flow rates. It is a promising therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Several studies have examined the physiologic effects of this therapy in the patient population and have revealed that it improves mucociliary clearance, reduces nasopharyngeal dead space, and subsequently increases CO2 washout. It also improves alveolar recruitment and gas exchange. These mechanisms may explain the promising results observed in recently published studies that examined the role of HFNT in stable COPD patients.

No abstract

Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO) is a demyelinating autoimmune disease involving the central nervous system. Acute respiratory failure from cervical myelitis due to NMO is known to occur but is uncommon in monophasic disease and is treated with high dose steroids. We report a case of a patient with NMO who developed acute respiratory failure related to cervical spinal cord involvement, refractory to pulse dose steroid therapy, which resolved with plasmapheresis.