BackgroundThere is an emerging understanding that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased incidence of pneumomediastinum. We aimed to determine its incidence among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the United Kingdom and describe factors associated with outcome.MethodsA structured survey of pneumomediastinum and its incidence was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021. United Kingdom-wide participation was solicited via respiratory research networks. Identified patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection and radiologically proven pneumomediastinum. The primary outcomes were to determine incidence of pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 and to investigate risk factors associated with patient mortality.Results377 cases of pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 were identified from 58 484 inpatients with COVID-19 at 53 hospitals during the study period, giving an incidence of 0.64%. Overall 120-day mortality in COVID-19 pneumomediastinum was 195/377 (51.7%). Pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 was associated with high rates of mechanical ventilation. 172/377 patients (45.6%) were mechanically ventilated at the point of diagnosis. Mechanical ventilation was the most important predictor of mortality in COVID-19 pneumomediastinum at the time of diagnosis and thereafter (p<0.001) along with increasing age (p<0.01) and diabetes mellitus (p=0.08). Switching patients from continuous positive airways pressure support to oxygen or high flow nasal oxygen after the diagnosis of pneumomediastinum was not associated with difference in mortality.ConclusionsPneumomediastinum appears to be a marker of severe COVID-19 pneumonitis. The majority of patients in whom pneumomediastinum was identified had not been mechanically ventilated at the point of diagnosis.

No abstract

No abstract

Indwelling pleural catheters [IPC] have an important role in the management of malignant pleural effusions. We report the development of a significant air leak following IPC insertion with resultant extensive subcutaneous emphysema. The air leak developed, presumably, as a result of visceral pleural disruption, which occurred at the time of vacuum drainage of pleural fluid after IPC placement and not due to lung injury during insertion. The patient required insertion of a large bore intercostal drain connected to low-pressure negative suction. He was eventually discharged home with the aid of an ambulatory system. Although commonly seen in the surgical setting, we believe emergency and respiratory physicians should be aware of the risk of such a complication, and the challenges in its management.

We used a survey to evaluate patient satisfaction with a remote system for the delivery of respiratory clinics and to capture future preferences. 98% of responders were satisfied with their current appointment being held remotely in order to reduce the risks from COVID-19. Regarding future preferences beyond the pandemic, 41% of respondents preferred a face-to-face appointment, 35% preferred a remote appointment and 24% had no preference of one modality over another. Additional qualitative data suggest that a flexible system allowing patients to choose the mode of attendance shortly before the appointment would be welcomed.

No abstract