ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction Percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a well-established practice that shows a reduced risk of wound infection compared with surgical tracheostomy, thus facilitating mechanical ventilation, nursing procedures, reduction in sedation and early mobilization. Objective This is an observational case-control study that compares the results of PT in ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prospectively enrolled to a similar group of subjects, retrospectively recruited, without COVID-19. Methods Ninety-eight consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU at Pisa Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana between March 11th and May 20th, 2020 were prospectively studied. Thirty of them underwent PT using different techniques. Another 30 non-COVID-19 ICU patients were used as a control-group. The main outcome was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of PT in COVID-19 patients. We measured the rate of complications. Results Percutaneous tracheostomy was performed with different techniques in 30 of the 98 COVID-19 ICU patients admitted to the ICU. Tracheostomy was performed on day 10 (mean 10 ± 3.3) from the time of intubation. Major tracheal complications occurred in 5 patients during the procedure. In the control group of 30 ICU patients, no differences were found with regards to the timing of the tracheostomy, whereas a statistically significant difference was observed regarding complications with only one tracheal ring rupture reported. Conclusion Percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients showed a higher rate of complications compared with controls even though the same precautions and the same expertise were applied. Larger studies are needed to understand whether the coronavirus disease itself carries an increased risk of tracheal damage.
ABSTRACT
Background: Prognostic stratification is of utmost importance for management of acute Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in clinical practice. Many prognostic models have been proposed, but which is the best prognosticator in real life remains unclear. The aim of our study was to compare and combine the predictive values of the hemodynamics/biomarkers based prognostic model proposed by European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in 2008 and simplified PESI score (sPESI). Methods: Data records of 452 patients discharged for acute PE from Internal Medicine wards of Tuscany (Italy) were analysed. The ESC model and sPESI were retrospectively calculated and compared by using Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) Curves (AUCs) and finally the combination of the two models was tested in hemodinamically stable patients. All cause and PE-related in-hospital mortality and fatal or major bleedings were the analyzed endpoints Results: All cause in-hospital mortality was 25% (16.6% PE related) in high risk, 8.7% (4.7%) in intermediate risk and 3.8% (1.2%) in low risk patients according to ESC model. All cause in-hospital mortality was 10.95% (5.75% PE related) in patients with sPESI score ≥1 and 0% (0%) in sPESI score 0. Predictive performance of sPESI was not significantly different compared with 2008 ESC model both for all cause (AUC sPESI 0.711, 95% CI: 0.661-0.758 versus ESC 0.619, 95% CI: 0.567-0.670, difference between AUCs 0.0916, p=0.084) and for PE-related mortality (AUC sPESI 0.764, 95% CI: 0.717-0.808 versus ESC 0.650, 95% CI: 0.598-0.700, difference between AUCs 0.114, p=0.11). Fatal or major bleedings occurred in 4.30% of high risk, 1.60% of intermediate risk and 2.50% of low risk patients according to 2008 ESC model, whereas these occurred in 1.80% of high risk and 1.45% of low risk patients according to sPESI, respectively. Predictive performance for fatal or major bleeding between two models was not significantly different (AUC sPESI 0.658, 95% CI: 0.606-0.707 versus ESC 0.512, 95% CI: 0.459-0.565, difference between AUCs 0.145, p=0.34). In hemodynamically stable patients, the combined endpoint in-hospital PE-related mortality and/or fatal or major bleeding (adverse events) occurred in 0% of patients with low risk ESC model and sPESI score 0, whilst it occurred in 5.5% of patients with low-risk ESC model but sPESI ≥1. In intermediate risk patients according to ESC model, adverse events occurred in 3.6% of patients with sPESI score 0 and 6.65% of patients with sPESI score ≥1. Conclusions: In real world, predictive performance of sPESI and the hemodynamic/biomarkers-based ESC model as prognosticator of in-hospital mortality and bleedings is similar. Combination of sPESI 0 with low risk ESC model may identify patients with very low risk of adverse events and candidate for early hospital discharge or home treatment.