Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Crit Care Med ; 49(7): 1058-1067, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1494030


OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis. SETTING: Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7-12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16-24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34-5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, -15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes.

COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Tracheostomy/methods , Aged , Cohort Studies , Critical Care , Dilatation/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord ; 9(4): 845-852, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-941362


OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we sought to better characterize the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) most at risk of severe, outpatient thrombosis by defining the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with arterial or venous thrombosis diagnosed at admission. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients. We found a shift in the proportions of thrombosis subtypes from 2019 to 2020, with declines in ST-segment myocardial infarction (from 22.0% to 10.1% of thrombotic events) and stroke (from 48.6% to 37.2%) and an increase in venous thromboembolism (from 29.4% to 52.7%). The patients with COVID-19-associated thrombosis were younger (age, 58 years vs 64 years; P = .043) and were less frequently women (31.3% vs 43.9%; P = .16). However, no differences were found in the body mass index or major comorbidities between those with and without COVID-19. COVID-19-associated thrombosis correlated with greater mortality (15.2% vs 4.3%; P = .016). The biometric profile of patients admitted with COVID-19-associated thrombosis compared with regular thrombosis showed significant changes in the complete blood count, liver function test results, D-dimer levels, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and coagulation panels. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients with COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization had increased mortality compared with outpatients without COVID-19 who developed thrombosis requiring hospitalization. Given the significantly higher inflammatory marker levels, it is possible this is related to different mechanisms of thrombotic disease in these patients. The inflammation could be a therapeutic target to reduce the risk, or aid in the treatment, of thrombosis. We call for more studies elucidating the role that immunothrombosis might be playing in patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19/complications , Hospitalization , Thrombosis/diagnosis , Aged , Arteries , Biomarkers/blood , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/etiology , Stroke/diagnosis , Stroke/etiology , Thrombosis/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 51(2): 330-338, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-754365


Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have previously been associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PERT utilization, recommendations, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with acute PE changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with acute PE who received care at an academic hospital system in New York City between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. These patients were compared against historic controls between March 1st and April 30th, 2019. PE severity, PERT utilization, initial management, PERT recommendations, and outcomes were compared. There were more cases of PE during the pandemic (82 vs. 59), but less PERT activations (26.8% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.001) despite similar markers of PE severity. PERT recommendations were similar before and during the pandemic; anticoagulation was most recommended (89.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.70). During the pandemic, those with PERT activations were more likely to be female (63.6% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.01), have a history of DVT/PE (22.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.01), and to be SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative (68.2% vs. 38.3% p = 0.02). PERT activation during the pandemic is associated with decreased length of stay (7.7 ± 7.7 vs. 13.2 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.02). PERT utilization decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and its activation was associated with different biases. PERT recommendations and outcomes were similar before and during the pandemic, and led to decreased length of stay during the pandemic.

Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Hospitals, University , Pandemics , Pulmonary Embolism , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pulmonary Embolism/blood , Pulmonary Embolism/drug therapy , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index