Analysis of Risk Factors for Tracheal Stenosis Managed during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective, Case-Control Study from Two European Referral Centre.

INTRODUCTION: Benign subglottic/tracheal stenosis (SG/TS) is a life-threatening condition commonly caused by prolonged endotracheal intubation or tracheostomy. Invasive mechanical ventilation was frequently used to manage severe COVID-19, resulting in an increased number of patients with various degrees of residual stenosis following respiratory weaning. The aim of this study was to compare demographics, radiological characteristics, and surgical outcomes between COVID-19 and non-COVID patients treated for tracheal stenosis and investigate the potential differences between the groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively retrieved electronical medical records of patients managed at two referral centers for airways diseases (IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital and Avicenne Hospital) with tracheal stenosis between March 2020 and May 2022 and grouped according to SAR-CoV-2 infection status. All patients underwent a radiological and endoscopic evaluation followed by multidisciplinary team consultation. Follow-up was performed through quarterly outpatient consultation. Clinical findings and outcomes were analyzed by using SPPS software. A significance level of 5% (p < 0.05) was adopted for comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients with a mean age of 56.4 (±13.4) years were surgically managed. Tracheal stenosis was COVID related in 36 (61%) patients. Obesity was frequent in the COVID-19 group (29.7 ± 5.4 vs. 26.9 ± 3, p = 0.043) while no difference was found regarding age, sex, number, and types of comorbidities between the two groups. In the COVID-19 group, orotracheal intubation lasted longer (17.7 ± 14.5 vs. 9.7 ± 5.8 days, p = 0.001), tracheotomy (80%, p = 0.003) as well as re-tracheotomy (6% of cases, p = 0.025) were more frequent and tracheotomy maintenance was longer (21.5 ± 11.9 days, p = 0.006) when compared to the non-COVID group. COVID-19 stenosis was located more distal from vocal folds (3.0 ± 1.86 vs. 1.8 ± 2.03 cm) yet without evidence of a difference (p = 0.07). The number of tracheal rings involved was lower in the non-COVID group (1.7 ± 1 vs. 2.6 ± 0.8 p = 0.001) and stenosis were more frequently managed by rigid bronchoscopy (74% vs. 47%, p = 0.04) when compared to the COVID-19 group. Finally, no difference in recurrence rate was detected between the groups (35% vs. 15%, p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity, a longer time of intubation, tracheostomy, re-tracheostomy, and longer decannulation time occurred more frequently in COVID-related tracheal stenosis. These events may explain the higher number of tracheal rings involved, although we cannot exclude the direct role of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the genesis of tracheal stenosis. Further studies with in vitro/in vivo models will be helpful to better understand the role of inflammatory status caused by SARS-CoV-2 in upper airways.

Bronchoscopy in the post-acute phase of COVID-19: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopy is a useful technique adopted in the management of patients with COVID-19. 10-40% of COVID-19 survivors experience persistent symptoms. A comprehensive description of the utility and safety of bronchoscopy in the management of patients with COVID-19 sequelae is lacking. The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of bronchoscopy in patients with suspected post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. METHODS: An observational, retrospective study was carried out in Italy. Patients requiring bronchoscopy for suspected COVID-19 sequelae were enrolled. RESULTS: 45 (21, 46.7%, female) patients were recruited. Bronchoscopy was more frequently indicated for patients with a previous critical disease. The most frequent indications were tracheal complications, mostly performed in patients who were hospitalized during the acute phase than treated at home (14, 48.3% VS. 1, 6.3%; p-value: 0.007) and persistent parenchymal infiltrates, more frequent in those treated at home (9, 56.3% VS. 5, 17.2%; p-value: 0.008). 3 (6.6%) patients after the first bronchoscopy required higher oxygen flow. Four patients were diagnosed with lung cancer. CONCLUSION: Bronchoscopy is a useful and safe technique in patients with suspected post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. The severity of acute disease plays a role in the rate and indications of bronchoscopy. Endoscopic procedures were mostly performed for tracheal complications in critical, hospitalized patients and for persistent lung parenchymal infiltrates in mild-moderate infections treated at home.

Early Hospital Discharge on Day Two Post Robotic Lobectomy with Telehealth Home Monitoring: A Pilot Study.

Despite the adoption of enhanced recovery programs, the reported postoperative length of stay after robotic surgery is 4 days even in highly specialized centers. We report preliminary results of a pilot study for a new protocol of early discharge (on day 2) with telehealth home monitoring after robotic lobectomy for lung cancer. All patients with a caregiver were discharged on postoperative day 2 with a telemonitoring device if they satisfied specific discharge criteria. Teleconsultations were scheduled once in the afternoon of post-operative day 2, twice on postoperative day 3, and then once a day until the chest tube removal. Post-discharge vital signs were recorded by patients at least four times daily through the device and were available for consultation by two surgeons through phone application. In case of sudden variation of vital signs or occurrence of adverse events, a direct telephone line was available for patients as well as a protected re-hospitalization path. Primary outcome was the safety evaluated by the occurrence of post-discharge complications and readmissions. Secondary outcome was the evaluation of resources optimization (hospitalization days) maintaining the standard of care. During the study period, twelve patients satisfied all preoperative clinical criteria to be enrolled in our protocol. Two of twelve enrolled patients were successively excluded because they did not satisfy discharge criteria on postoperative day 2. During telehealth home monitoring a total of 27/427 vital-sign measurements violated the threshold in seven patients. Among the threshold violations, only 1 out of 27 was a critical violation and was managed at home. No postoperative complication occurred neither readmission was needed. A mean number of three hospitalization days was avoided and an estimated economic benefit of about EUR 500 for a single patient was obtained if compared with patients submitted to VATS lobectomy in the same period. These preliminary results confirm that adoption of telemonitoring allows, in selected patients, a safe discharge on postoperative day 2 after robotic surgery for early-stage NSCLC. A potential economic benefit could derive from this protocol if this data will be confirmed in larger sample.

Impact of active cancer on COVID-19 survival: a matched-analysis on 557 consecutive patients at an Academic Hospital in Lombardy, Italy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of active cancer in COVID-19 patients is poorly defined; however, most studies showed a poorer outcome in cancer patients compared to the general population. METHODS: We analysed clinical data from 557 consecutive COVID-19 patients. Uni-multivariable analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors of COVID-19 survival; propensity score matching was used to estimate the impact of cancer. RESULTS: Of 557 consecutive COVID-19 patients, 46 had active cancer (8%). Comorbidities included diabetes (n = 137, 25%), hypertension (n = 284, 51%), coronary artery disease (n = 114, 20%) and dyslipidaemia (n = 122, 22%). Oncologic patients were older (mean age 71 vs 65, p = 0.012), more often smokers (20% vs 8%, p = 0.009), with higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (13.3 vs 8.2, p = 0.046). Fatality rate was 50% (CI 95%: 34.9;65.1) in cancer patients and 20.2% (CI 95%: 16.8;23.9) in the non-oncologic population. Multivariable analysis showed active cancer (HRactive: 2.26, p = 0.001), age (HRage>65years: 1.08, p < 0.001), as well as lactate dehydrogenase (HRLDH>248mU/mL: 2.42, p = 0.007), PaO2/FiO2 (HRcontinuous: 1.00, p < 0.001), procalcitonin (HRPCT>0.5ng/mL: 2.21, p < 0.001), coronary artery disease (HRyes: 1.67, p = 0.010), cigarette smoking (HRyes: 1.65, p = 0.041) to be independent statistically significant predictors of outcome. Propensity score matching showed a 1.92× risk of death in active cancer patients compared to non-oncologic patients (p = 0.013), adjusted for ICU-related bias. We observed a median OS of 14 days for cancer patients vs 35 days for other patients. CONCLUSION: A near-doubled death rate between cancer and non-cancer COVID-19 patients was reported. Active cancer has a negative impact on clinical outcome regardless of pre-existing clinical comorbidities.

Low Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Solid Tumours on Active Treatment: An Observational Study at a Tertiary Cancer Centre in Lombardy, Italy.

Background: The incidence and prognosis of SARS-CoV-2-positive cancer patients on active oncologic treatment remain unknown. Retrospective data from China reported higher incidence and poorer outcomes with respect to the general population. We aimed to describe the real-word incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in cancer patients and the impact of oncologic therapies on the infection. Materials & Methods: In this study, we analysed all consecutive cancer patients with solid tumours undergoing active intravenous treatment (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, alone or in combination) between 21 February and 30 April 2020, in a high-volume cancer centre in Lombardy, Italy. We focused on SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, reporting on the clinical characteristics of the cancer and the infection. Results: We registered 17 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients among 1267 cancer patients on active treatment, resulting in an incidence of 1.3%. The median age was 69.5 years (range 43-79). Fourteen patients (82%) required hospitalisation for COVID-19 with a median in-hospital stay of 11.5 days (range 3-58). Fourteen of the seventeen (82%) were treated for locally advanced or metastatic disease. We could not demonstrate any correlation between SARS-CoV-2 infection and tumour or treatment type. The COVID-19-related fatality rate was 29% (5/17), which was higher than that of the general population cared for in our centre (20%). Conclusions: Active oncologic treatments do not represent a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. However, the prognosis of infected cancer patients appears to be worse compared with that of the non-oncologic population. Given the low number of SARS-CoV-2-positive cases and the uncertainties in risk factors that may have an impact on the prognosis, we advocate for the continuum of cancer care even during the current pandemic.