Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
2.
J Intensive Care Med ; 37(5): 641-646, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1218276

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous ultrasound guided gastrostomy (PUG) tube placement with traditional fluoroscopic guided percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement (PRG). METHODS: A prospective, observational, non-randomized cohort trial was performed comparing 25 consecutive patients who underwent PUG placement between April 2020 and August 2020 with 25 consecutive patients who underwent PRG placement between February 2020 and March 2020. Procedure time, sedation, analgesia requirements, and complications were compared between the two groups in non-inferiority analysis. RESULTS: Technical success rates were 96% in both groups (24/25) of procedures. Ninety-two percent of patients in the PUG cohort were admitted to the ICU at the time of G-tube request. Aside from significantly more COVID-19 patients in the PUG group (P < .001), there was no other statistically significant difference in patient demographics. Intra-procedure pain medication requirements were the same for both groups, 50 micrograms of IV fentanyl (P = 1.0). Intra-procedure sedation with IV midazolam was insignificantly higher in the PUG group 1.12 mg vs 0.8 mg (P = .355). Procedure time trended toward statistical significance (P = .076), with PRG being shorter than PUG (30.5 ± 14.1 minutes vs 39.7 ± 17.9 minutes). There were 2 non-device related major complications in the PUG group and 1 major and 1 minor complication in the PRG group. CONCLUSION: PUG is similar in terms of complications to PRG gastrostomy tube placement and a safe method for gastrostomy tube placement in the critically ill with the added benefits of bedside placement, elimination of radiation exposure, and expanded and improved access to care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Gastrostomy , Gastrostomy/methods , Humans , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Ultrasonography, Interventional
3.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(3): 373-375, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067076

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the setting of the COVID pandemic, many patients falling ill with acute respiratory distress syndrome eventually require prone positioning for gas exchange. Traditionally, central venous catheters are inserted with patient in the supine or Trendelenburg position. However, when a patient cannot tolerate supine position and the need for central venous access is urgent, catheter placement may be considered with the patient in the prone position. CASE SUMMARY: A 69-year-old male with rapidly declining respiratory status secondary to COVID pneumonia quickly developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, was rapidly intubated, and then placed in the prone position. Patient could not tolerate the supine position even briefly and required a central venous catheter insertion for continuous renal replacement therapy. We kept the patient in the prone position and successfully inserted a central venous catheter in such position with real-time ultrasound guidance and using micropuncture technique. CONCLUSION: In the setting of the COVID pandemic, many cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome require patients to be prone in order to improve gas exchange. In the most severe situations, these patients would not be able to tolerate rotating back to the supine position but would still require central venous catheter insertion urgently. We demonstrated feasibility of central venous catheter insertion in the prone position in these severely ill patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Catheterization, Central Venous/methods , Patient Positioning/methods , Prone Position , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Ultrasonography, Interventional/methods , Aged , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Male , Punctures , SARS-CoV-2
4.
J Vasc Access ; 21(4): 408-410, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-175837

ABSTRACT

The 2020 COVID pandemic has forced everyone to update the usual medical procedures and adapt them to a new situation characterized by a high risk of contamination of the health operator. The placement of a venous access device is no exception. In the experience of the vascular access team of our hospital, hit by the COVID epidemic in March 2020, the safety of both the patient and the staff can be ensured by an insertion bundle of few smart strategies, which include choice of long dwelling peripheral catheters (midline catheters) rather than short venous cannulas; use of power injectable peripherally inserted central catheters in the COVID patients in intensive care unit requiring a central line; use of wireless probes-easy to carry, easy to clean-for ultrasound guided venipuncture; avoidance of x-rays, using alternative methods for tip location such as intracavitary electrocardiography or trans-thoracic echocardiography; strict adoption of the barrier precautions recommended by the international guidelines.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Catheterization, Central Venous , Catheterization, Peripheral , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Infection Control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , COVID-19 , Catheterization, Central Venous/adverse effects , Catheterization, Central Venous/instrumentation , Catheterization, Peripheral/adverse effects , Catheterization, Peripheral/instrumentation , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Humans , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health , Pandemics , Patient Safety , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Protective Factors , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Virulence
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL