Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 8(1)2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1322832


OBJECTIVE: For the diagnosis of COVID-19, the yield of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs is unclear, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is obtained to confirm the diagnosis. We assessed the utilisation of bronchoscopy for COVID-19 diagnosis in a multicenter study and compared the diagnostic yield of BAL versus NP swabs. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients who were admitted with clinical presentation concerning for COVID-19 and underwent BAL from 1 March to 31 July 2020 at four tertiary care centres in North America. We also compared concordance of BAL with NP swabs for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients, with clinical suspicion for COVID-19 and admitted for respiratory failure, underwent bronchoscopy to collect BAL for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During the same period, 2039 bronchoscopies were performed on patients not infected with COVID-19. Of 42 patients with NP swabs and BAL collected within ≤7 days, 1 was NP swab negative but positive by BAL for SARS-CoV-2 (n=1/42 (2.4%)). Across a wide array of testing platforms, the overall agreement between NP swabs and BAL results was 97.6% (95% CI: 93.0% to 100%) with Cohen's k of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.00). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of NP swabs compared with BAL were 83.3% (95% CI: 53.5% to 100%), 100%, 100% and 97.3% (95% CI: 92.1% to 100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BAL was used infrequently to assess COVID-19 in busy institutions. NP swabs have a high concordance with BAL for COVID-19 testing, but negative NP swabs should be confirmed with BAL when clinical suspicion is high.

Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/virology , Bronchoscopy/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Aged , COVID-19 Testing , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , North America , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies
Ann Surg ; 274(2): 234-239, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1304022


OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Tracheostomy has an essential role in managing COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure who require prolonged mechanical ventilation. However, limited data are available on how tracheostomy affects COVID-19 outcomes, and uncertainty surrounding risk of infectious transmission has led to divergent recommendations and practices. METHODS: It is a multicenter, retrospective study; data were collected on all tracheostomies performed in COVID-19 patients at 7 hospitals in 5 tertiary academic medical systems from February 1, 2020 to September 4, 2020. RESULT: Tracheotomy was performed in 118 patients with median time from intubation to tracheostomy of 22 days (Q1-Q3: 18-25). All tracheostomies were performed employing measures to minimize aerosol generation, 78.0% by percutaneous technique, and 95.8% at bedside in negative pressure rooms. Seventy-eight (66.1%) patients were weaned from the ventilator and 18 (15.3%) patients died from causes unrelated to tracheostomy. No major procedural complications occurred. Early tracheostomy (≤14 days) was associated with decreased ventilator days; median ventilator days (Q1-Q3) among patients weaned from the ventilator in the early, middle and late groups were 21 (21-31), 34 (26.5-42), and 37 (32-41) days, respectively with P = 0.030. Compared to surgical tracheostomy, percutaneous technique was associated with faster weaning for patients weaned off the ventilator [median (Q1-Q3): 34 (29-39) vs 39 (34-51) days, P = 0.038]; decreased ventilator-associated pneumonia (58.7% vs 80.8%, P = 0.039); and among patients who were discharged, shorter intensive care unit duration [median (Q1-Q3): 33 (27-42) vs 47 (33-64) days, P = 0.009]; and shorter hospital length of stay [median (Q1-Q3): 46 (33-59) vs 59.5 (48-80) days, P = 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Early, percutaneous tracheostomy was associated with improved outcomes compared to surgical tracheostomy in a multi-institutional series of ventilated patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Tracheostomy/methods , Adult , Aged , Cross Infection/transmission , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Tracheotomy/methods , United States
Crit Care Explor ; 2(5): e0134, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-646753


OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility of modified protocol during percutaneous tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic era. DESIGN: A retrospective review of cohort who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy with modified protocol. SETTINGS: Medical, surgical, and neurologic ICUs. SUBJECTS: Patients admitted in medical, surgical, and neurologic units with prolonged need of mechanical ventilation or inability to liberate from the ventilator. INTERVENTIONS: A detailed protocol was written. Steps were defined to be performed before apnea and during apnea. A feasibility study of 28 patients was conducted. The key aerosol-generating portions of the procedure were performed with the ventilator switched to standby mode with the patient apneic. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data including patient demographics, primary diagnosis, age, body mass index, and duration of apnea time during the tracheostomy were collected. Average ventilator standby time (apnea) during the procedure was 238 seconds (3.96 min) with range 149 seconds (2.48 min) to 340 seconds (5.66 min). Single-use (disposable) bronchoscopes (Ambu A/S [Ballerup, Denmark] or Glidescope [Verathon, Inc., Bothell, WA]) were used during all procedures except in nine. No desaturation events occurred during any procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous tracheostomy performed with apnea protocol may help minimize aerosolization, reducing risk of exposure of coronavirus disease 2019 to staff. It can be safely performed with portable bronchoscopes to limit staff and minimize the surfaces requiring disinfection post procedure.