Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
2.
Minerva Med ; 113(2): 281-290, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1847990

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of continuous positive airway pressure and respiratory physiotherapy outside the Intensive Care Unit during a pandemic. METHODS: In this cohort study performed in February-May 2020 in a large teaching hospital in Milan, COVID-19 patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome receiving continuous positive airway pressure (positive end-expiratory pressure =10 cm H2O, FiO2=0.6, daily treatment duration: 4×3h-cycles) and respiratory physiotherapy including pronation outside the Intensive Care Unit were followed-up. RESULTS: Of 90 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients treated with continuous positive airway pressure (45/90, 50% pronated at least once) outside the Intensive Care Unit and with a median (interquartile) follow-up of 37 (11-46) days, 45 (50%) were discharged at home, 28 (31%) were still hospitalized, and 17 (19%) died. Continuous positive airway pressure failure was recorded for 35 (39%) patients. Patient mobilization was associated with reduced failure rates (P=0.033). No safety issues were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous positive airway pressure with patient mobilization (including pronation) was effective and safe in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 managed outside the Intensive Care Unit setting during the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pronation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
3.
Minerva Cardiol Angiol ; 70(3): 303-309, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1841790

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Lombardy region, in Northern Italy, suffered a major outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the end of February 2020. The health system was rapidly overwhelmed by the pandemic. It became evident that patients suffering from time-sensitive medical emergencies like stroke, cerebral hemorrhage, trauma and acute myocardial infarction required timely, effective and safe pathways to be treated. The problem was addressed by a regional decree that created a hub-and-spoke system for time-sensitive medical emergencies. METHODS: We report the re-organizational changes adopted at a hub hospital (despite having already destined to COVID-19 patients most resources), and the number of emergent procedures for medical emergencies on the first 30-day of activity. These data were compared with the hospital activity in the same period of the previous year. RESULTS: Organizational changes were implemented in few hours. Dedicated pathways for non-COVID-19 patients affected by a medical emergency were set up in the emergency department, in the labs and in the operating theater. Ten intensive beds were implemented from a high-dependency unit; two operating rooms were reserved 24 h/day to neurosurgical or trauma emergencies. The number of emergent procedures was not different from that of the previous year, no admission refusal, no treatment delay and no viral transmission to the treated patients were recorded. No viral transmission to health care workers was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Re-organization of a hospital in order to adopt a hub-and-spoke model resulted feasible and allowed to face acute coronary syndrome and other time-sensitive medical emergencies timely and safely.


Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergencies , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-314861

ABSTRACT

Background: Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave. Methods: : Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020 in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19.Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position were collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Responders if the PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position. Results: : Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs 33%, p<0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance was observed. Seventy-eight % of patients were Responders to prone position. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p=0.047). Conclusions: : During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670

5.
Minerva Cardiol Angiol ; 69(5): 596-605, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1524826

ABSTRACT

The best timing of orotracheal intubation and invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome is unknown. The use of non-invasive ventilation, a life-saving technique in many medical conditions, is debated in patients with ARDS since prolonged NIV and delayed intubation may be harmful. Shortage of intensive care beds and ventilators during a respiratory pandemic can trigger a widespread use of early non-invasive ventilation in many hospitals but which is the best way to ventilate patients with severe bilateral pneumonia and severely increased spontaneous ventilation is controversial. Moreover, viral spreading to health-care workers and other hospitalized patients is an issue for any device used to administer oxygen. Even if protective mechanical ventilation is currently the gold standard for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome, tracheal intubation is not without risks and is associated with delirium, hemodynamic instability, immobilization and post intensive care syndrome. Both invasive and non-invasive ventilation are associated with advantages and limitations that should be carefully considered when patients with COVID-19-ARDS need our attention. In the absence of strong evidence, in this review we highlight all the pro and con of these two different approaches.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Lung , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
6.
JAMA ; 323(16): 1574-1581, 2020 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453471

ABSTRACT

Importance: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) emerged in China and has spread globally, creating a pandemic. Information about the clinical characteristics of infected patients who require intensive care is limited. Objective: To characterize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) in the Lombardy region of Italy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective case series of 1591 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinator center (Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network and treated at one of the ICUs of the 72 hospitals in this network between February 20 and March 18, 2020. Date of final follow-up was March 25, 2020. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasal and pharyngeal swabs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic and clinical data were collected, including data on clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality. Data were recorded by the coordinator center on an electronic worksheet during telephone calls by the staff of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network. Results: Of the 1591 patients included in the study, the median (IQR) age was 63 (56-70) years and 1304 (82%) were male. Of the 1043 patients with available data, 709 (68%) had at least 1 comorbidity and 509 (49%) had hypertension. Among 1300 patients with available respiratory support data, 1287 (99% [95% CI, 98%-99%]) needed respiratory support, including 1150 (88% [95% CI, 87%-90%]) who received mechanical ventilation and 137 (11% [95% CI, 9%-12%]) who received noninvasive ventilation. The median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 14 (IQR, 12-16) cm H2O, and Fio2 was greater than 50% in 89% of patients. The median Pao2/Fio2 was 160 (IQR, 114-220). The median PEEP level was not different between younger patients (n = 503 aged ≤63 years) and older patients (n = 514 aged ≥64 years) (14 [IQR, 12-15] vs 14 [IQR, 12-16] cm H2O, respectively; median difference, 0 [95% CI, 0-0]; P = .94). Median Fio2 was lower in younger patients: 60% (IQR, 50%-80%) vs 70% (IQR, 50%-80%) (median difference, -10% [95% CI, -14% to 6%]; P = .006), and median Pao2/Fio2 was higher in younger patients: 163.5 (IQR, 120-230) vs 156 (IQR, 110-205) (median difference, 7 [95% CI, -8 to 22]; P = .02). Patients with hypertension (n = 509) were older than those without hypertension (n = 526) (median [IQR] age, 66 years [60-72] vs 62 years [54-68]; P < .001) and had lower Pao2/Fio2 (median [IQR], 146 [105-214] vs 173 [120-222]; median difference, -27 [95% CI, -42 to -12]; P = .005). Among the 1581 patients with ICU disposition data available as of March 25, 2020, 920 patients (58% [95% CI, 56%-61%]) were still in the ICU, 256 (16% [95% CI, 14%-18%]) were discharged from the ICU, and 405 (26% [95% CI, 23%-28%]) had died in the ICU. Older patients (n = 786; age ≥64 years) had higher mortality than younger patients (n = 795; age ≤63 years) (36% vs 15%; difference, 21% [95% CI, 17%-26%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, the majority were older men, a large proportion required mechanical ventilation and high levels of PEEP, and ICU mortality was 26%.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Positive-Pressure Respiration/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Distribution , Young Adult
7.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(9): 995-1008, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1349283

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To evaluate the daily values and trends over time of relevant clinical, ventilatory and laboratory parameters during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay and their association with outcome in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this retrospective-prospective multicentric study, we enrolled COVID-19 patients admitted to Italian ICUs from February 22 to May 31, 2020. Clinical data were daily recorded. The time course of 18 clinical parameters was evaluated by a polynomial maximum likelihood multilevel linear regression model, while a full joint modeling was fit to study the association with ICU outcome. RESULTS: 1260 consecutive critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted in 24 ICUs were enrolled. 78% were male with a median age of 63 [55-69] years. At ICU admission, the median ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) was 122 [89-175] mmHg. 79% of patients underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall mortality was 34%. Both the daily values and trends of respiratory system compliance, PaO2/FiO2, driving pressure, arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure, creatinine, C-reactive protein, ferritin, neutrophil, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, and platelets were associated with survival, while for lactate, pH, bilirubin, lymphocyte, and urea only the daily values were associated with survival. The trends of PaO2/FiO2, respiratory system compliance, driving pressure, creatinine, ferritin, and C-reactive protein showed a higher association with survival compared to the daily values. CONCLUSION: Daily values or trends over time of parameters associated with acute organ dysfunction, acid-base derangement, coagulation impairment, or systemic inflammation were associated with patient survival.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Aged , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
8.
World J Emerg Surg ; 16(1): 39, 2021 07 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318287

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDS: The COVID-19 pandemic drastically strained the health systems worldwide, obligating the reassessment of how healthcare is delivered. In Lombardia, Italy, a Regional Emergency Committee (REC) was established and the regional health system reorganized, with only three hospitals designated as hubs for trauma care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of this reorganization of regional care, comparing the distribution of patients before and during the COVID-19 outbreak and to describe changes in the epidemiology of severe trauma among the two periods. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using retrospectively collected data from the Regional Trauma Registry of Lombardia (LTR). We compared the data of trauma patients admitted to three hub hospitals before the COVID-19 outbreak (September 1 to November 19, 2019) with those recorded during the pandemic (February 21 to May 10, 2020) in the same hospitals. Demographic data, level of pre-hospital care (Advanced Life Support-ALS, Basic Life Support-BLS), type of transportation, mechanism of injury (MOI), abbreviated injury score (AIS, 1998 version), injury severity score (ISS), revised trauma score (RTS), and ICU admission and survival outcome of all the patients admitted to the three trauma centers designed as hubs, were reviewed. Screening for COVID-19 was performed with nasopharyngeal swabs, chest ultrasound, and/or computed tomography. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, trauma patients admitted to the hubs increased (46.4% vs 28.3%, p < 0.001) with an increase in pre-hospital time (71.8 vs 61.3 min, p < 0.01), while observed in hospital mortality was unaffected. TRISS, ISS, AIS, and ICU admission were similar in both periods. During the COVID-19 outbreak, we observed substantial changes in MOI of severe trauma patients admitted to three hubs, with increases of unintentional (31.9% vs 18.5%, p < 0.05) and intentional falls (8.4% vs 1.2%, p < 0.05), whereas the pandemic restrictions reduced road- related injuries (35.6% vs 60%, p < 0.05). Deaths on scene were significantly increased (17.7% vs 6.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 outbreak affected the epidemiology of severe trauma patients. An increase in trauma patient admissions to a few designated facilities with high level of care obtained satisfactory results, while COVID-19 patients overwhelmed resources of most other hospitals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/trends , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Registries , Trauma Centers/statistics & numerical data , Wounds and Injuries/epidemiology , Adult , Comorbidity , Female , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Injury Severity Score , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Wounds and Injuries/diagnosis , Wounds and Injuries/therapy
9.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 128, 2021 04 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1169981

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position. RESULTS: Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Intubation/standards , Patient Positioning/standards , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial/standards , Supine Position , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Retrospective Studies
11.
JAMA Ophthalmol ; 139(9): 956-963, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1116914

ABSTRACT

Importance: Since February 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly all over the world, with an epidemiological cluster in Lombardy, Italy. The viral communicability may be mediated by various body fluids, but insufficient information is available on the presence of the virus in human tears. Objectives: To investigate the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in tears collected from patients with COVID-19 by means of real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay and to assess the association of virus presence with concomitant clinical conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study conducted between April 9 and May 5, 2020. The setting was intensive care units at Azienda Socio-Sanitaria Territoriale (ASST) Sette-Laghi Hospital, University of Insubria, in Varese, Lombardy, Italy. A conjunctival swab was performed in 91 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, which was clinically diagnosed by rRT-PCR assay on nasopharyngeal swabs and by radiological imaging. Conjunctival swabs from 17 additional healthy volunteer participants with no symptoms of COVID-19 were examined to evaluate the availability and applicability of the conjunctival swab test. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 detection by means of rRT-PCR assay performed on the collected samples obtained by conjunctival swabs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Conjunctival swab and nasopharyngeal swab results are reported, as well as demographic and clinical data. Results: A total of 108 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [14.2] years; 55 female and 53 male) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using rRT-PCR assay, including 91 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and 17 were healthy volunteers. SARS-CoV-2 was found on the ocular surface in 52 of 91 patients with COVID-19 (57.1%; 95% CI, 46.3%-67.5%), with a wide variability in the mean viral load from both eyes. Among a subset of 41 patients, concordance of 63.0% (95% CI, 41.0%-81.0%) was found between positive conjunctival and nasopharyngeal swab test results when performed within 2 days of each other. In 17 of these patients, nasopharyngeal swab results were negative for SARS-CoV-2. In 10 of these 17 patients, conjunctival swab results were positive for the virus. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found on the ocular surface in a large part of this cohort of patients with COVID-19, although the infectivity of this material could not be determined. Because patients may have positive test results with a conjunctival swab and negative results with a nasopharyngeal swab, use of the slightly invasive conjunctival swab may be considered as a supplementary diagnostic test.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , Conjunctiva/virology , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Tears/virology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Predictive Value of Tests , RNA, Viral/genetics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Specimen Handling
12.
JAMA Intern Med ; 180(10): 1345-1355, 2020 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1042172

ABSTRACT

Importance: Many patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are critically ill and require care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective: To evaluate the independent risk factors associated with mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring treatment in ICUs in the Lombardy region of Italy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational cohort study included 3988 consecutive critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinating center (Fondazione IRCCS [Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico] Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network from February 20 to April 22, 2020. Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay of nasopharyngeal swabs. Follow-up was completed on May 30, 2020. Exposures: Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, long-term medications, and ventilatory support at ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death in days from ICU admission to hospital discharge. The independent risk factors associated with mortality were evaluated with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of the 3988 patients included in this cohort study, the median age was 63 (interquartile range [IQR] 56-69) years; 3188 (79.9%; 95% CI, 78.7%-81.1%) were men, and 1998 of 3300 (60.5%; 95% CI, 58.9%-62.2%) had at least 1 comorbidity. At ICU admission, 2929 patients (87.3%; 95% CI, 86.1%-88.4%) required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The median follow-up was 44 (95% CI, 40-47; IQR, 11-69; range, 0-100) days; median time from symptoms onset to ICU admission was 10 (95% CI, 9-10; IQR, 6-14) days; median length of ICU stay was 12 (95% CI, 12-13; IQR, 6-21) days; and median length of IMV was 10 (95% CI, 10-11; IQR, 6-17) days. Cumulative observation time was 164 305 patient-days. Hospital and ICU mortality rates were 12 (95% CI, 11-12) and 27 (95% CI, 26-29) per 1000 patients-days, respectively. In the subgroup of the first 1715 patients, as of May 30, 2020, 865 (50.4%) had been discharged from the ICU, 836 (48.7%) had died in the ICU, and 14 (0.8%) were still in the ICU; overall, 915 patients (53.4%) died in the hospital. Independent risk factors associated with mortality included older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.60-1.92), male sex (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.31-1.88), high fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), high positive end-expiratory pressure (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) or low Pao2:Fio2 ratio (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) on ICU admission, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.28-2.19), hypercholesterolemia (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52), and type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39). No medication was independently associated with mortality (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97-1.42; angiotensin receptor blockers HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.29). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, most patients required IMV. The mortality rate and absolute mortality were high.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Critical Illness , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 163(1): 135-137, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-913960

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 outbreak poses continued struggles due to the unprecedented number of patients admitted to intensive care units and the overwhelming need for mechanical ventilation. We report a preliminary case series of 32 patients with COVID-19 who underwent elective tracheostomies after a mean intubation period of 15 days (range, 9-21 days). The procedure was performed with percutaneous (10 cases) and open (22 cases) surgical techniques. Neither procedure-related complications nor viral transmission to health care workers was observed. Our preliminary experience supports the safety of tracheostomy, provided that appropriate protocols are strictly followed. The postoperative care is still debated, and, prudentially, our protocol includes tracheal tube change not before 2 weeks after tracheostomy, with cuff deflation and decannulation deferred until confirmation of negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. This is the first case series to report on such a rapidly evolving issue and might represent a source of information for clinicians worldwide who will soon be facing the same challenges.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Tracheostomy/methods , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Elective Surgical Procedures , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Incidence , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL