IMPORTANCEThe effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19.OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSRandomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR,(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy.

IntroductionEmergency medicine (EM) is in different stages of development around the world. Colombia has made significant strides in EM development in the last two decades and recognized it as a medical specialty in 2005. The country now has seven EM residency programs: three in the capital city of Bogotá, two in Medellin, one in Manizales, and one in Cali. The seven residency programs are in different stages of maturity, with the oldest founded 20 years ago and two founded in the last two years. The objective of this study was to characterize these seven residency programs.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with faculty and residents from all the existing programs in 2013–2016. Topics included program characteristics and curricula.ResultsColombian EM residencies are three-year programs, with the exception of one four-year program. Programs accept 3–10 applicants yearly. Only one program has free tuition and the rest charge tuition. The number of EM faculty ranges from 2–15. EM rotation requirements range from 11–33% of total clinical time. One program does not have a pediatric rotation. The other programs require 1–2 months of pediatrics or pediatric EM. Critical care requirements range from 4–7 months. Other common rotations include anesthesia, general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, gynecology, orthopedics, ophthalmology, radiology, toxicology, psychiatry, neurology, cardiology, pulmonology, and trauma. All programs offer 4–6 hours of protected didactic time each week. Some programs require Advanced Cardiac Life Support, Pediatric Advanced Life Support and Advanced Trauma Life Support, with some programs providing these trainings in-house or subsidizing the cost. Most programs require one research project for graduation. Resident evaluations consist of written tests and oral exams several times per year. Point-of-care ultrasound training is provided in four of the seven programs.ConclusionAs emergency medicine continues to develop in Colombia, more residency programs are expected to emerge. Faculty development and sustainability of academic pursuits will be critically important. In the long term, the specialty will need to move toward certifying board exams and professional development through a national EM organization to promote standardization across programs.

Background: Reported risk of bleeding complications after central catheter access in patients with thrombocytopenia is highly variable. Current guidelines recommend routine prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion before central venous catheter placement in patients with severe thrombocytopenia. Nevertheless, the strength of such recommendations is weak and supported by observational studies including few patients with very low PLT counts (<20 × 10 9 /L). This study aims to assess the risk of bleeding complications related to using or not using prophylactic PLT transfusion before ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with very low PLT counts. Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with very low PLT counts (<20 × 10 9 /L) subjected to ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization between January 2011 and November 2019 in a university hospital. Bleeding complications were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess the risk of major and minor bleeding complications comparing patients who did or did not receive prophylactic PLT transfusion for the procedure. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to handle missing data. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: Among 221 patients with very low PLT counts, 72 received prophylactic PLT transfusions while 149 did not. Baseline characteristics were similar between transfused and nontransfused patients. No major bleeding events were identified, while minor bleeding events were recognized in 35.7% of patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant differences in bleeding complications between patients who received prophylactic PLT transfusions and those who did not (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.55, p = 0.567). Additional complete case and sensitivity analyses yielded results similar to those of the main analysis. Conclusions:In this single-center retrospective cohort study of ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with very low PLT counts, no major bleeding was identified, and prophylactic PLT transfusions did not significantly decrease minor bleeding events.

No abstract