Safe extubation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Epidemiology of Weaning From Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Subjects With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 have different characteristics of evolution and outcome compared to the general ICU population. Although early weaning from mechanical ventilation is associated with improved outcomes, inadequate identification of patients unable to be weaned may lead to extubation failure and increased days on mechanical ventilation. Outcomes related to mechanical ventilation weaning in this population are scare and inconclusive. Therefore, the objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of mechanical ventilation weaning in subjects with acute respiratory failure induced by COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a multi-center, prospective cohort study. We included adult subjects requiring at least 12 h of mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 infection admitted to any participating ICUs. Characteristics of the mechanical ventilation weaning and extubation process, as well as clinical results, were the primary outcome variables. Weaning types were defined according to previously described and internationally recognized categories.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-six subjects from 8 ICUs were included. A spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) was not performed in 52.1% of subjects. One hundred twenty-eight subjects were extubated, and 29.7% required re-intubation. All the subjects included could be classified by Weaning according to a New Definition (WIND) classification (group 0 = 52.1%, group 1 = 28.5%, group 2 = 8.0%, and group 3 = 11.3%) with statistically significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (P < .001) and ICU length of stay (P < .001) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The mechanical ventilation weaning process in subjects with COVID-19 was negatively affected by the disease, with many subjects never completing an SBT. Even though temporal variables were modified, the clinical outcomes in each weaning group were similar to those previously reported.

Mitigating the Spread of Covid-19 During Extubation: Assessing the Impact of a Barrier Device

COVID-19 is a novel virus spread via airborne particles. Given the inherent risk to the anesthesia provider, intubation and airway management guidelines have been recently established. Various studies have been published advocating and detailing the results of different intubation devices designed to decrease the number of airborne particles. Currently, little literature exists regarding devices designed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 airborne particles during extubation. The purpose of this prospective in situ simulated manikin study was to measure the effectiveness of an aerosolized containment device during passive (deep) and forced (simulated coughing) extubation. Airborne particles were measured at the 0.3, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10-micron level. Statistically significant decreases were seen with the use of a barrier device during both passive and forced extubation.

Comparison of the Characteristics of Intubation Airway Barrier Devices Using a Simulated Airway Task Trainer

Background: With the advent of variant strains such as Delta and Omicron, there have been renewed concerns regarding transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) (coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)) disease to healthcare professionals, particularly during intubation procedures. Several forms of barrier protection aimed at decreasing the spread of aerosolized droplets were developed during the early onset of the pandemic.

Objectives: Using a simulated airway model, we examined the impact that three separate barrier devices had on intubation time and success using both direct and video laryngoscopy. We hypothesized that the functionally simplistic devices would be preferred and would allow for faster intubations.

Methods: Just-in-time training sessions focusing on COVID-19 intubations were set up between March and June of 2020. Sixty-seven emergency physicians and anesthesiologists participated. For a subset of physicians, exact times to barrier device setup and both direct and indirect intubations using three different barrier devices were recorded. Subsequently, physicians were asked to fill out a survey regarding their experiences.

Results: The survey response rate was 60%. In general, this cohort preferred a plain clear plastic drape or clear plastic drape with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) cube for direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy setups. The use of these two devices resulted in significantly faster times to completed intubation when compared with the fiberglass box while using a simulated task trainer.

Conclusion: In general, a simple, plastic sheet was the preferred barrier device using video laryngoscopy. Although setup times were faster using the fiberglass box, intubation times were significantly faster using the plastic drape or PVC frame.

COVID-19 Critical Illness: A Data-Driven Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges in critical care medicine, including extreme demand for intensive care unit (ICU) resources and rapidly evolving understanding of a novel disease. Up to one-third of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 experience critical illness. The most common form of organ failure in COVID-19 critical illness is acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, which clinically presents as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in three-quarters of ICU patients. Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are being used with increasing frequency given their potential to reduce the need for intubation. Determining optimal patient selection for and timing of intubation remains a challenge. Management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 largely mirrors that of non-COVID-19 ARDS. Organ failure is common and portends a poor prognosis. Mortality rates have improved over the course of the pandemic, likely owing to increasing disease familiarity, data-driven pharmacologics, and improved adherence to evidence-based critical care.

Poverty and Risk of Cleft Lip and Palate: An Analysis of United States Birth Data

BACKGROUND

The relationship between poverty and incidence of cleft lip and cleft palate remains unclear. The authors investigated the association between socioeconomic status and cleft lip with or without cleft palate and cleft palate only in the United States after controlling for demographic and environmental risk factors.

METHODS

The U.S. 2016 and 2017 natality data were utilized. Proxies for socioeconomic status included maternal education, use of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, and payment source for delivery. Multiple logistic regression controlled for household demographics, prenatal care, maternal health, and infant characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 6,251,308 live births included, 2984 (0.05 percent) had cleft lip with or without cleft palate and 1180 (0.02 percent) had cleft palate only. Maternal education of bachelor's degree or higher was protective against, and delayed prenatal care associated with, cleft lip with or without cleft palate (adjusted ORs = 0.73 and 1.14 to 1.23, respectively; p < 0.02). Receiving assistance under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children was associated with cleft palate only (adjusted OR = 1.25; p = 0.003). Male sex, first-trimester tobacco smoking, and maternal gestational diabetes were also associated with cleft lip with or without cleft palate (adjusted ORs = 1.60, 1.01, and 1.19, respectively; p < 0.05). Female sex, prepregnancy tobacco smoking, and maternal infections during pregnancy were associated with cleft palate only (adjusted ORs = 0.74, 1.02, and 1.60, respectively; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Increased incidence of orofacial clefts was associated with indicators of lower socioeconomic status, with different indicators associated with different cleft phenotypes. Notably, early prenatal care was protective against the development of cleft lip with or without cleft palate.

CLIINCAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

Single Institution's Plastic Surgery Case Trends and Considerations in the Midst of COVID-19

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Ten things you need to know about intensive care unit management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19

Introduction: The ongoing pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has posed important challenges for clinicians and health-care systems worldwide.Areas covered: The aim of this manuscript is to provide brief guidance for intensive care unit management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 based on the literature and our direct experience with this population. PubMed, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library were searched up until 15th of January 2021 for relevant literature.Expert opinion: Initially, the respiratory management of COVID-19 relied on the general therapeutic principles for acute respiratory distress syndrome; however, recent findings have suggested that the pathophysiology of hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 presents specific features and changes over time. Several therapies, including antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents, have been proposed recently. The optimal intensive care unit management of patients with COVID-19 remains unclear; therefore, ongoing and future clinical trials are warranted to clarify the optimal strategies to adopt in this cohort of patients.

Clinical recommendations for in-hospital airway management during aerosol-transmitting procedures in the setting of a viral pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), can lead to severe pneumonia and multiorgan failure. While most of the infected patients develop no or only mild symptoms, some need respiratory support or even invasive ventilation. The exact route of transmission is currently under investigation. While droplet exposure and direct contact seem to be the most significant ways of transmitting the disease, aerosol transmission appears to be possible under circumstances favored by high viral load. Despite the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), this situation potentially puts healthcare workers at risk of infection, especially if they are involved in airway management. Various recommendations and international guidelines aim to protect healthcare workers, although evidence-based research confirming the benefits of these approaches is still scarce. In this article, we summarize the current literature and recommendations for airway management of COVID-19 patients.

Safe Extubation of Patients with COVID-19 for Minimizing Aerosolized Droplets

Background:

Healthcare workers must be protected during extubation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) owing to the presence of aerosolized droplets. Herein, we report a technique for extubating a patient with COVID-19 while minimizing aerosol dispersion.

Case Report:

We retrospectively identified a total of 79 patients admitted to our hospital from February 2020 to January 2021. Six of these patients were intubated for mechanical ventilation, 2 of whom had to be extubated. We prepared a clear vinyl sheet in the shape of a tent to place over the patient, and 2 staff members, both well experienced in airway management, stood outside the tent on either side of the patient. Before extubation, we confirmed that the patient’s consciousness level was good and the patient had no distress by adjusting the dose of sedative drugs. After extubation, a surgical mask was placed on the patient’s face.

Conclusion:

Our experience indicates that this method of extubation in a patient with COVID-19 could be safely implemented to protect healthcare workers.

Rapid Adoption of an Interdisciplinary Care Team Model for Surgical Residents Managing Coronavirus Disease-19

Introduction: Patients infected with SARS-Cov-2, the causative virus behind the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, have been increasing rapidly in New York City. New York City has the highest incidence in the United States and fully 45% of all deaths from COVID-19. Our medical center is located within a high-density region of cases in south Brooklyn and, in fact, three of our neighborhood zip codes are in the top seven in New York in incidence. As a result, our center has experienced a dramatic increase in hospitalizations, particularly respiratory distress secondary to COVID-19, which rapidly exceeded the capacity of our internal medicine service. This necessitated the formation of new COVID-19 units throughout the hospital, replacing all former service lines. These units employed management teams composed of residents from many medical and surgical disciplines, including general surgery residents. Methods: Our general surgery residency program established a surgical COVID-19 (SCOVID) management team. Initially, 4 surgical residents (2 senior and 2 junior), 1 attending surgeon, and 1 attending internal medicine physician were allocated to the initial SCOVID team. On day 3 of implementation, to achieve more rapid competence in the complex management of these patients, a senior medicine resident with direct experience in the care of COVID-19 patients was added in an advisory capacity. Results: The addition of an experienced senior medical resident and attending allowed for the quick adoption of uniform management protocols by surgical residents and attendings. Discussion: We describe a protocol for the establishment of COVID-19 management teams staffed with general surgical residents, as well as a strategy for the achievement of rapid increases in competency. The addition of a senior internal medicine resident and attending to our SCOVID team allowed for rapid achievement of competency in the care of COVID-19 patients in our large institution at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The barrier techniques for airway management in covid-19 patients - review of literature

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a pandemic and shall prevail for some time around the globe. The disease can manifest from asymptomatic to severe respiratory compromise requiring airway intervention. Transmission of COVID-19 has been reported to be by droplets, fomites, and aerosols, and airway management is an aerosol-generating procedure. The high viral load in the patient's airway puts the clinician performing intubation at a very high risk of viral load exposure. So, the need for barrier devices was considered and led to reporting of various such devices. All these devices have been reported individually and have not been compared. We present a review of all the information on these devices based on the reported literature.

Current Recommendations for Airway Management Techniques in COVID-19 Patients without Respiratory Failure Undergoing General Anaesthesia: A Nonsystematic Literature Review

Summary Background

Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first emerged, many articles have been published on airway management for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, there is a lack of clear and concise conceptual framework for working with infected patients without respiratory failure undergoing general anaesthesia compared to noninfected patients. The aim of this article is to review current literature data on new challenges for anaesthesia providers, compare standard airway management techniques protocols with new data, and discuss optimisation potential.

Materials and methods

Literature search was performed in Google Scholar and PubMed databases using these keywords and their combinations: anaesthesia, preoxygenation, airway management, difficult airway, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19. The following nonsystematic review is based on a comprehensive literature search of available data, wherein 41 articles were chosen for detailed analysis. Summarised and analysed data are presented in the article.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 has unique implications for airway management techniques in patients without respiratory failure undergoing general anesthesia. Main differences with the standard practice include: institutional preparedness, team composition principles, necessary skills, equipment, drugs, intubation and extubation strategies. Failed or difficult intubation is managed with predominance of emergency front of neck access (FONA) due to increased aerosol generation.

Conclusions

Airway management techniques in COVID-19 patients without respiratory failure are more challenging than in noninfected patients undergoing general anaesthesia. Safe, accurate and swift actions avoid unnecessary time delay ensuring the best care for patients, and reduce risk of contamination for staff. Appropriate airway strategy, communication, minimisation of time for aerosol generating procedures and ramped-up position aid to achieve these goals. During the pandemic, updated available literature data may change clinical practice as new evidence emerges.

The role of a pediatric tertiary care center in avoiding collateral damage for children with acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 outbreak

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic-related lockdown on management and outcomes of children with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including children treated for acute appendicitis (January 20th-May 11th, 2020). The data regarding the severity of appendicitis and outcome were collected and compared for two time periods, before and after the nationwide lockdown (March 17th, 2020).

RESULTS

The number of cases of acute appendicitis increased by 77% during the lockdown (n = 39 vs. n = 69, p = 0.03). During the lockdown, children treated for appendicitis were older (11.1 vs. 8.9 years, p = 0.003), and were more likely to live more than 5 km away from our institution (77% vs. 52%, p = 0.017). Less children had previously consulted a general practitioner (15% vs. 33%, p = 0.028), whereas more children were transferred from other hospitals (52% vs. 31%, p = 0.043). There was no difference in terms of length of hospital stay, rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess, ER visits, and readmissions between both periods. Three children (4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in the number of children with appendicitis managed at our hospital during the COVID-19-related lockdown, management, and outcome remained similar. Although our pediatric center was strongly affected by this pandemic, maintaining our prior practice strategies for acute appendicitis avoided the occurrence of collateral damage for those children.