Background The clinical features and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who develop a pneumothorax has not been rigorously described or compared to those who do not develop a pneumothorax. Purpose To determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax. In addition, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients who developed a pneumothorax with those who did not develop a pneumothorax. Methods This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of all adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who were admitted to intensive care units in 4 tertiary care centers in the United States. Results A total of 842 critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection were analyzed, out of which 594 (71%) were mechanically ventilated. The overall incidence of pneumothorax was 83/842 (10%), and 80/594 (13%) in those who were mechanically ventilated. As compared to mechanically ventilated patients in the non-pneumothorax group, mechanically ventilated patients in the pneumothorax group had worse respiratory parameters at the time of intubation (mean PaO 2 :FiO 2 ratio 105 vs 150, P<0.001 and static respiratory system compliance: 30ml/cmH 2 O vs 39ml/cmH 2 O, P=0.01) and significantly higher in-hospital mortality (63% vs 49%, P=0.04). Conclusion The overall incidence of pneumothorax mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection was 13%. Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax had worse gas exchange and respiratory mechanics at the time of intubation and had a higher mortality compared to those who did not develop pneumothorax.
BackgroundData regarding the benefits or harm associated with the continuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), especially the effect on inflammation, in patients who are hypertensive and hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States are unclear.MethodsThis is a single-center cohort study of patients sequentially hospitalized with COVID-19 at Stony Brook University Medical Center from March 7, 2020 to April 1, 2020, inclusive of these dates. Data collection included history of known comorbidities, medications, vital signs, and laboratory values (at admission and during the hospitalization). Outcomes include inflammatory burden (composite scores for multiple markers of inflammation), AKI, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality.ResultsOf the 300 patients in the study cohort, 80 patients (27%) had history of ACEI or ARB use before admission, with 61% (49/80) of these patients continuing the medications during hospitalization. Multivariable analysis revealed that the history of ACEI or ARB use before hospitalization was not associated with worse outcomes. In addition, the continuation of these agents during hospitalization was not associated with an increase in adverse outcomes and predicted fewer ICU admissions (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.81) with a decrease in the severity of inflammatory burden (peak C-reactive protein, 6.9±3.1 mg/dl, P=0.03; peak inflammation score, 2.3±1.1 unit reduction, P=0.04).ConclusionsUse of ACEI or ARBs before hospitalization was not associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19, and the therapeutic benefits of continuing ACEI or ARB in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was not offset by adverse outcomes.
Background: A novel coronavirus (COVID-19) erupted in the latter part of 2019. The virus, SARS-CoV-2 can cause a range of symptoms ranging from mild through fulminant respiratory failure. Approximately 25% of hospitalized patients require admission to the intensive care unit, with the majority of those requiring mechanical ventilation. High density consolidations in the bronchial tree and in the pulmonary parenchyma have been described in the advanced phase of the disease. We noted a subset of patients who had a sudden, significant increase in peak airway, plateau and peak inspiratory pressures. Partial or complete ETT occlusion was noted to be the culprit in the majority of these patients. Methods: With institutional IRB approval, we examined a subset of our mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. All of the patients were admitted to one of our COVID-19 ICUs. Each was staffed by a board certified intensivist. During multidisciplinary rounds, all arterial blood gas (ABG) results, ventilator settings and ventilator measurements are discussed and addressed. ARDSNet Protocols are employed. In patients with confirmed acute occlusion of the endotracheal tube (ETT), acute elevation in peak airway and peak inspiratory pressures are noted in conjunction with desaturation. Data was collected retrospectively and demographics, ventilatory settings and ABG results were recorded. Results: Our team has observed impeded ventilation in intubated patients who are several days into the critical course. Pathologic evaluation of the removed endotracheal tube contents from one of our patients demonstrated a specimen consistent with sloughed tracheobronchial tissues and inflammatory cells in a background of dense mucin. Of 110 patients admitted to our adult COVID-19 ICUs, 28 patients required urgent exchange of their ETT. Conclusion: Caregivers need to be aware of this pathological finding, recognize, and to treat this aspect of the COVID-19 critical illness course, which is becoming more prevalent.
BackgroundThere is little published data investigating non-invasive cardiac output monitoring in the emergency department (ED). We assessed six non-invasive fluid responsiveness monitoring methods which measure cardiac output directly or indirectly for their feasibility and repeatability of measurements in the ED: (1) left ventricular outflow tract echocardiography derived velocity time integral, (2) common carotid artery blood flow, (3) suprasternal aortic Doppler, (4) bioreactance, (5) plethysmography with digital vascular unloading method, and (6) inferior vena cava collapsibility index.MethodsThis is a prospective observational study of non-invasive methods of assessing fluid responsiveness in the ED. Participants were non-ventilated ED adult patients requiring intravenous fluid resuscitation. Feasibility of each method was determined by the proportion of clinically interpretable measurements from the number of measurement attempts. Repeatability was determined by comparing the mean difference of two paired measurements in a fluid steady state (after participants received an intravenous fluid bolus).Results76 patients were recruited in the study. A total of 207 fluid responsiveness measurement sets were analysed. Feasibility rates were 97.6% for bioreactance, 91.3% for vascular unloading method with plethysmography, 87.4% for common carotid artery blood flow, 84.1% for inferior vena cava collapsibility index, 78.7% for LVOT VTI, and 76.8% for suprasternal aortic Doppler. The feasibility rates difference between bioreactance and all other methods was statistically significant.ConclusionOur study shows that non-invasive fluid responsiveness monitoring in the emergency department may be feasible with selected methods. Higher repeatability of measurements were observed in non-ultrasound methods. These findings have implications for further studies specifically assessing the accuracy of such non-invasive cardiac output methods and their effect on patient outcome in the ED in fluid depleted states such as sepsis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-019-0586-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.