Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
2.
Laryngoscope ; 131(12): E2849-E2856, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242750

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Report long-term tracheostomy outcomes in patients with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Review of prospectively collected data. METHODS: Prospectively collected data were extracted for adults with COVID-19 undergoing percutaneous or open tracheostomy between April 4, 2020 and June 2, 2020 at a major medical center in New York City. The primary endpoint was weaning from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included sedation weaning, decannulation, and discharge. RESULTS: One hundred one patients underwent tracheostomy, including 48 percutaneous (48%) and 53 open (52%), after a median intubation time of 24 days (IQR 20, 31). The most common complication was minor bleeding (n = 18, 18%). The all-cause mortality rate was 15% and no deaths were attributable to the tracheostomy. Eighty-three patients (82%) were weaned off mechanical ventilation, 88 patients (87%) were weaned off sedation, and 72 patients (71%) were decannulated. Censored median times from tracheostomy to sedation and ventilator weaning were 8 (95% CI 6-11) and 18 (95% CI 14-22) days, respectively (uncensored: 7 and 15 days). Median time from tracheostomy to decannulation was 36 (95% CI 32-47) days (uncensored: 32 days). Of those decannulated, 82% were decannulated during their index admission. There were no differences in outcomes or complication rates between percutaneous and open tracheostomy. Likelihood of discharge from the ICU was inversely related to intubation time, though the clinical relevance of this was small (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.943-0.998; P = .037). CONCLUSION: Tracheostomy by either percutaneous or open technique facilitated sedation and ventilator weaning in patients with COVID-19 after prolonged intubation. Additional study on the optimal timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E2849-E2856, 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Tracheostomy/methods , Aged , Airway Extubation/mortality , Airway Extubation/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/mortality , Cause of Death , Conscious Sedation/mortality , Conscious Sedation/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Time Factors , Tracheostomy/mortality , Treatment Outcome , Ventilator Weaning/mortality , Ventilator Weaning/statistics & numerical data
3.
Ann Surg ; 273(3): 403-409, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066511

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the safety, efficacy, and early results of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 and determine whether differences exist between percutaneous and open methods. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Prolonged respiratory failure is common in symptomatic patients with COVID-19, the disease process caused by infection with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Tracheostomy, although posing potential risk to the operative team and other healthcare workers, may be beneficial for safe weaning of sedation and ventilator support. However, short- and long-term outcomes remain largely unknown. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy at a major medical center in New York City between April 4 and April 30, 2020 was reviewed. The primary endpoint was need for continued mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, sedation weaning, and need for intensive care unit (ICU) level of care. Patient characteristics, perioperative conditions, and outcomes between percutaneous and open groups were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 67 consecutive patients underwent tracheostomy, including 48 males and 19 females with a median age of 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) 52-72]. Two surgeons alternated techniques, with 35 tracheostomies performed percutaneously and 32 via an open approach. The median time from intubation to tracheostomy was 23 days (IQR 20-26). At a median follow-up of 26 days, 52 patients (78%) no longer required mechanical ventilation and 58 patients (87%) were off continuous sedation. Five patients (7.5%) died of systemic causes. There were 11 total complications (16%) in 10 patients, most of which involved minor bleeding. There were no significant differences in outcomes between percutaneous and open methods. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy under apneic conditions by either percutaneous or open technique can be safely performed in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Tracheostomy facilitated weaning from continuous intravenous sedation and mechanical ventilation. Continued follow-up of these patients to ascertain long-term outcome data is ongoing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Respiration, Artificial , Tracheostomy/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York City , Survival Rate , Tracheostomy/methods
4.
Simul Healthc ; 16(1): 46-51, 2021 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-960653

ABSTRACT

SUMMARY STATEMENT: Simulation played a critical role in our institution's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. With the rapid influx of critically ill patients, resource limitations, and presented safety concerns, simulation became a vital tool that provided solutions to the many challenges we faced. In this article, we describe how simulation training was deployed at our institution throughout the course of the pandemic, which included the period of our medical surge. Simulation helped refine protocols, facilitate practice changes, uncover safety gaps, and train redeployed healthcare workers in unfamiliar roles. We also discuss the obstacles we encountered with implementing simulations during the pandemic, the measures we took to adapt to our limitations, and the simulation strategies and end products that were derived from these adaptations.


Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , Personnel, Hospital/education , Simulation Training/organization & administration , Airway Management/methods , Critical Illness , Disaster Planning/organization & administration , Hospital Rapid Response Team/organization & administration , Humans , New York City , Patient Positioning , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Simul. Gaming ; 2020.
Article in English | WHO COVID, ELSEVIER | ID: covidwho-276894

ABSTRACT

Background. In early 2020, the novel coronavirus pandemic forced communities around the globe to shut down and isolate. Routine graduate medical education activities have also been suspended as resident and fellow physicians-in-training have been re-deployed to support critical patient care services. Innovation. We developed a two-part hybrid telesimulation model to teach COVID-19 ventilator management strategies while physically separating a group of learners and an instructor from one another. Learners consisted of non-ICU health care providers with limited experience in ventilator management being redeployed to manage ICU level COVID-19 infected patients. In the first week, the video tutorial has been viewed over 500 times and we have facilitated 14 telesimulation sessions, including 48 participants comprised of hospitalists, emergency medicine physicians and physician assistants, pediatric residents, nurses, and a nurse educator. Conclusion. We believe that the combination of a video tutorial followed by an interactive telesimulation was successful in providing timely education during a coronavirus pandemic. Furthermore, it reinforced the value and flexibility in which simulation education could continue conveniently for learners despite significant restrictions in place during the coronavirus pandemic. Research is needed to assess the efficacy of this hybrid intervention in preparing healthcare workers and to determine if the knowledge is successfully transferred to the clinical setting.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL