No abstract

Medtronic. Dr. Nead has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Bowling has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Murgu has received personal fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pinnacle Biologics, Olympus, Cook, Auris Robotics, and Elsevier; and has stock ownership in Concordia, Boston Scientific, and Merck. Dr. Krimsky has received personal fees from Medtronic, Innovital Systems, Gala Therapeutic, SOC, and Peytant; has stock ownership with Innovital Systems and CSA Medical; and has patents pending with Medtronic and Merit. Dr. Murillo has received support from Medtronic. Dr. LeMense has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Minnich has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Bansal has received personal fees from Medtronic, Pinnacle Biologics, Sunovion, and Veran Medical. Dr. Ellis has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Mahajan has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Gildea has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Bechara has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Sztejman has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Flandes has received grants from BTG-PneumRx and Ambu; and personal fees from Medtronic, BTG-PneumRx, Olympus, Ambu, PulmonX, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Rickman has received personal fees from Medtronic, Veran Medical, BD, Olympus, and Abbvie. Dr. Benzaquen has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Hogarth has received personal fees from Medtronic, Auris Surgical Robotics, Boston Scientific, Grifols, Shire, and CSL; and has stock ownership with Auris Surgical Robotics. Dr. Linden has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Wahidi has received personal fees from Medtronic and Veran Medical. Dr. Mattingley has received personal fees from Medtronic and is current employee of Medtronic (employment began after completion of enrollment). Dr. Hood is an employee with stock ownership at Medtronic; and has stock ownership with Boston Scientific. Ms. Lin and Ms. Wolvers are employees with stock ownership at Medtronic. Dr. Khandar has received personal fees from Medtronic.

BACKGROUND: The role of tracheostomy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains unknown. The goal of this consensus statement is to examine the current evidence for performing tracheostomy in patients with respiratory failure from COVID-19 and offer guidance to physicians on the preparation, timing, and technique while minimizing the risk of infection to health care workers (HCWs). METHODS: A panel including intensivists and interventional pulmonologists from three professional societies representing 13 institutions with experience in managing patients with COVID-19 across a spectrum of health-care environments developed key clinical questions addressing specific topics on tracheostomy in COVID-19. A systematic review of the literature and an established modified Delphi consensus methodology were applied to provide a reliable evidence-based consensus statement and expert panel report. RESULTS: Eight key questions, corresponding to 14 decision points, were rated by the panel. The results were aggregated, resulting in eight main recommendations and five additional remarks intended to guide health-care providers in the decision-making process pertinent to tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure. CONCLUSION: This panel suggests performing tracheostomy in patients expected to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. A specific timing of tracheostomy cannot be recommended. There is no evidence for routine repeat reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing in patients with confirmed COVID-19 evaluated for tracheostomy. To reduce the risk of infection in HCWs, we recommend performing the procedure using techniques that minimize aerosolization while wearing enhanced personal protective equipment. The recommendations presented in this statement may change as more experience is gained during this pandemic.

Background: In March 2020, many elective medical services were canceled in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The daily case rate is now declining in many states and there is a need for guidance about the resumption of elective clinical services for patients with lung disease or sleep conditions. Methods: Volunteers were solicited from the Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors and American Thoracic Society. Working groups developed plans by discussion and consensus for resuming elective services in pulmonary and sleep-medicine clinics, pulmonary function testing laboratories, bronchoscopy and procedure suites, polysomnography laboratories, and pulmonary rehabilitation facilities. Results: The community new case rate should be consistently low or have a downward trajectory for at least 14 days before resuming elective clinical services. In addition, institutions should have an operational strategy that consists of patient prioritization, screening, diagnostic testing, physical distancing, infection control, and follow-up surveillance. The goals are to protect patients and staff from exposure to the virus, account for limitations in staff, equipment, and space that are essential for the care of patients with COVID-19, and provide access to care for patients with acute and chronic conditions. Conclusions: Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a dynamic process and, therefore, it is likely that the prevalence of COVID-19 in the community will wax and wane. This will impact an institution’s mitigation needs. Operating procedures should be frequently reassessed and modified as needed. The suggestions provided are those of the authors and do not represent official positions of the Association of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Division Directors or the American Thoracic Society.

Our prediction rule can be used to estimate prN2/3 in patients with NSCLC. The model has the potential to facilitate clinical decision making in the staging of NSCLC.

From our single-center experience, we conclude that in experienced hands, EBUS-TVNA is feasible, with a high yield, but without complications. Larger prospective trials are warranted to explore its diagnostic potential.

; on behalf of the RENEW Study Group * BACKGROUND: The Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment in Patients With Emphysema (RENEW) trial reported improvements in quality of life, pulmonary function, and exercise performance following endobronchial coil treatment. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to identify baseline predictors, including quantitative CT measures, that identify patients most likely to significantly benefit from endobronchial coil therapy. METHODS: Quantitative CT analysis by an independent radiology laboratory and a qualitative evaluation by five blinded experts of the baseline thoracic CT imaging were performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to elucidate characteristics associated with clinical response. RESULTS: In total, 125 patients underwent coil treatment and had evaluable 12-month followup results. Of these, 78 patients received treatment of lobes with the highest emphysematous destruction determined by quantitative CT analysis (quantitative visual match [QVM]þ), and 47 received treatment in at least one lobe that was not the most destroyed (QVM-). From the 78 patients with QVMþ treatment, a subgroup of 50 patients (64%) was identified with baseline residual volume > 200% predicted, emphysema score > 20% low attenuation area, and absence of airway disease. In this subgroup, greater lobar residual volume reduction in the treated lobes was achieved, which was associated with significant mean AE SE improvement in FEV 1 (15.2 AE 3.1%), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (-12 AE 2 points), and residual volume (-0.57 AE 0.13 L). DISCUSSION: This post hoc analysis found that both significant hyperinflation (residual volume $ 200% predicted) and CT analysis are critical for patient selection and treatment planning for endobronchial coil therapy. Quantitative CT analysis is important to identify optimal lobar treatment and to exclude patients with insufficient emphysema (< 20% low attenuation area), whereas visual assessment identifies patients with signs of airway disease associated with worse outcomes.

EBUS-TBNA is safe and effective in the diagnosis of EBUS-visible intrapulmonary lesions. It should be considered as the diagnostic test of choice in patients with these lesions undergoing EBUS-TBNA for the staging of suspected lung cancer.