Compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream combined with tetracaine prevents cough caused by extubation after general anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coughing caused by tracheal extubation is common following general anaesthesia. Heavy aerosol production by coughing during recovery from general anaesthesia in patients with respiratory infections (especially COVID-19) may be one of the highest risk factors for infection in healthcare workers. The application of local anaesthetics to the endotracheal tube is an effective method to reduce coughing. The most commonly used anaesthetics are compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream and tetracaine spray. However, coughing still occurs when the two anaesthetics are used alone. We speculated that the application of compound lidocaine/prilocaine combined with tetracaine spray would better prevent coughing caused by tracheal extubation. METHODS: Patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy or cholecystectomy combined with common bile duct exploration under general anaesthesia were randomly assigned to Group C (saline spray), Group L (2 g compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream contains 5 mg of lidocaine and 5 mg prilocaine)), Group T (tetracaine) and Group F (compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream combined with tetracaine). The incidence of coughing, the endotracheal tube tolerance assessment, the incidence of agitation, the active extubation rate, the incidence of postoperative pharyngeal pain and the incidence of postoperative cough were recorded and analysed. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and the plasma concentrations of epinephrine and norepinephrine were measured immediately before extubation and 1 min after extubation. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients were randomly assigned to Group C (53 cases), Group L (52 cases), Group T (52 cases) and Group F (54 cases). The primary result is assessment of the incidence of cough. The patients emerged from general anaesthesia, 96% of Group C had cough, which was significantly reduced in Group L (61.5%, P < 0.001), Group T (75%, P < 0.05) and Group F (22.2%, P < 0.001). Group F had a significantly reduced incidence of cough compared to Group L and Group T (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01, respectively). The secondary results were assessed. The endotracheal tube tolerance score in Group C ((1, 3) 4, P < 0.001) was higher than Group L ((0, 1) 2), Group T ((0, 1.25) 3) and Group F ((0, 0) 1). Group F had a significantly lower score than Group L and Group T (P < 0.05, P < 0.01, respectively). The incidence of agitation and the active extubation rate were also higher in Group C (96.2% and 71.7%, respectively, P < 0.001) than Group L (48.1% and 15.4%, respectively), Group T (61.5% and 26.9%, respectively) and Group F (17.3% and 7.7%, respectively). Blood pressure, HR and plasma concentrations of epinephrine and norepinephrine were significantly higher in Group C than in all other groups at the time of extubation and 1 min after extubation (P < 0.001). Group F exhibited significantly reduced blood pressure, heart rate and plasma concentrations of epinephrine and norepinephrine compared to Group L and Group T (P < 0.05, P < 0.01 or P < 0.001, respectively). The incidence of postoperative pharyngeal pain and the incidence of postoperative cough were not significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compound lidocaine/prilocaine cream combined with tetracaine may be a more effective approach for preventing coughing and stabilising circulation during extubation following general anaesthesia. This may play an important role in preventing medical staff from contracting respiratory infectious diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2200058429 (registration date: 09-04-2022) "retrospectively registered".

Identification and Prevention of Extubation Failure by Using an Automated Continuous Monitoring Alert Versus Standard Care.

BACKGROUND: Postextubation monitoring helps identify patients at risk of developing respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of our standard respiratory therapist (RT) assessment tool versus an automated continuous monitoring alert to initiate postextubation RT-driven care on the re-intubation rate. METHODS: This was a single-center randomized clinical trial from March 2020 to September 2021 of adult subjects who received mechanical ventilation for > 24 h and underwent planned extubation in the ICU. The subjects were assigned to the standard RT assessment tool or an automated monitoring alert to identify the need for postextubation RT-driven care. The primary outcome was the need for re-intubation due to respiratory failure within 72 h. Secondary outcomes included re-intubation within 7 d, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, hospital mortality, ICU cost, and RT time associated with patient assessment and therapy provision. RESULTS: Of 234 randomized subjects, 32 were excluded from the primary analysis due to disruption in RT-driven care during the surge of patients with COVID-19, and 1 subject was excluded due to delay in the automated monitoring initiation. Analysis of the primary outcome included 85 subjects assigned to the standard RT assessment group and 116 assigned to the automated monitoring alert group to initiate RT-driven care. There was no significant difference between the study groups in re-intubation rate, median length of stay, mortality, or ICU costs. The RT time associated with patient assessment (P < .001) and therapy provided (P = .031) were significantly lower in the automated continuous monitoring alert group. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects who received mechanical ventilation for > 24 h, there were no significant outcome or cost differences between our standard RT assessment tool or an automated monitoring alert to initiate postextubation RT-driven care. Using an automated continuous monitoring alert to initiate RT-driven care saved RT time. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04231890).

Post extubation swallowing in critical patients with and without COVID-19 during the pandemic / Deglución post extubación de pacientes críticos con y sin diagnóstico de COVID-19 durante la pandemia

Estudios previos han caracterizado la disfagia en pacientes críticos hospitalizados que requieren intubación y ventilación mecánica invasiva. A raíz de la pandemia COVID-19 es necesario conocer las características deglutorias de pacientes diagnosticados con la enfermedad para su manejo. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar las características deglutorias de pacientes críticos extubados con y sin diagnóstico de COVID-19. Se llevó a cabo un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo con una muestra a conveniencia de 43 sujetos mayores de 15 años, ingresados al Hospital San Juan de Dios (Santiago, Chile) entre el 01 de junio y el 31 de agosto de 2020, intubados con o sin diagnóstico de COVID-19. Del total de sujetos, 22 padecieron de COVID-19 quienes estuvieron significativamente más días intubados que aquellos sin la patología (p=0,002). Inmediatamente posterior a la extubación orotraqueal, más del 90% de la muestra presentó disfagia. No hubo diferencia significativa en el nivel FILS ni asociación significativa en el grado de severidad de la disfagia entre sujetos con y sin COVID-19. Tampoco hubo diferencia significativa en el nivel FILS entre los grupos a los 10 días post-extubación. El nivel FILS a los 10 días aumentó significativamente en aquellos sujetos con COVID-19 (p=0,016) y sin COVID-19 (p=0,004). En la muestra, el nivel FILS y grado de severidad de la disfagia de los pacientes con y sin COVID-19 no mostraron diferencias estadísticas, siendo alto el porcentaje de disfagia en ambos grupos, lo que se podría asociar a la intubación orotraqueal y al tubo orotraqueal. Es necesaria la incorporación del fonoaudiólogo dentro de los equipos de Unidades de Pacientes Críticos para el manejo de los pacientes con COVID-19 y disfagia. Además, se recomienda continuar con más estudios en el área.

Previous research have described the deglutition disorders in critical hospitalised patients who required intubation and mechanical ventilation. In the pandemic context, it is mandatory to study both level and grade of dysphagia in patients suffering from COVID-19. The aim of this study is to analyse the deglutition features of extubated critical patients with and without COVID-19. A retrospective cohort study was performed, considering a convenience sample of 43 patients from 15 years old hospitalised at 'Hospital San Juan de Dios' between June 1st and August 31th 2020, who were intubated, with and without the diagnosis of COVID-19. 22of out 43 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 who were intubated for significantly more days in comparison with those without COVID-19 (p=.002). After the intratracheal extubation, 90% of the sample was diagnosed with dysphagia. There was no significant difference in the FILS score nor significant association in dysphagia severity between patients with and without COVID-19. After 10 days post extubation, there was no significant difference in the FILS score between both groups. The FILS score increased significantly in the COVID-19 (p=.016) and non-COVID-19 (p=.004) patients after 10 days post extubation. Post extubation, there are no statistical differences in the FILS score and dysphagia severity in critical ill patients with and without COVID-19, with a high percentage of dysphagia in both groups which could be associated with intratracheal intubation and endotracheal tubes. The incorporation of speech and language therapists in Critical Care Units is mandatory. Furthermore, it is recommended to perform extra research in the area.

[COVID-EX. Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of unplanned extubations (UE) in intensive care units (ICUs): A case-control study]. / COVID-EX. Influence de la pandémie de Covid-19 sur le taux d'extubation non programmée en réanimation : étude castemoins rétrospective.

CONTEXT: In ICUs, many patients are intubated. UE is an indicator of the quality of care.Isolation associated with "air" precautions may increase the number of UEs in mechanically ventilated (MV) COVID patients.The main aim of the study was to compare the rate of UE between a COVID-19 period and a control period. The secondary aims were to identify UE risk factors and to study the experience of caregivers during the COVID-19 period. METHOD: The method of choice was a retrospective single center case-control study. MV patients aged ≥ 18 years were eligible in two periods: the control period from 01/02/2020 to 29/02/2020, and the COVID-19 period from 01/03/2020 to 31/03/2020. An anonymous survey was given to ICU caregivers in Vannes Hospital. RESULTS: The UE rate was 17% (n=7) vs. 20% (n=9) control period vs. COVID-19 period (p=0.58), with nocturnal preponderance (75%). A quarter (n=4) of patients fulfill MV weaning criteria at the time of UE. A 71% (n=49) survey response rate was obtained. The COVID-19 period had a higher estimated UE risk for 76% (n=37) of caregivers, who felt that they had a greater workload, difficulties with monitoring, and decreased regular visits to patients' rooms. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the caregiver experience, we reported a similar UE rate over both the COVID-19 period and the control period.

Outcomes of Extubated COVID and Non-COVID Patients Receiving Awake Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Cessation of continuous analgesia and sedation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) facilitates early extubation, family, patient and provider engagement, and mobility. Outcomes associated with an awake ECMO strategy have not been well described in the literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients receiving this strategy. This was a retrospective review of ARDS patients receiving awake VV ECMO. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included days requiring ECMO, time from cannulation to extubation, complications, patients requiring tracheostomy, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition. In a subgroup analysis, outcomes were compared between non-COVID and COVID ECMO patients. Sixty-two patients were included with a survival to hospital discharge of 85.5%. Days requiring ECMO was 33.0 (0.0-75.0) and cannulation to extubation was 6.0 (4.0-11.0). Three patients received a tracheostomy (4.8%). Bleeding and infection were reported in 80.6% and 82.3% of patients, respectively. Intensive care unit length of stay was 46.0 days (29.0-90.0) and hospital LOS was 51.0 days (32.0-91.0). Over half of the patients (51.6%) were discharged to an acute rehabilitation facility and 27.4% were discharged home. There was similar survival to hospital discharge between the COVID and non-COVID awake ECMO patients (85% in both groups, p = 1.000). This study highlights the impact of an awake ECMO approach on survival to hospital discharge. Future studies are needed to evaluate this approach as compared to current practice to determine if this should become the standard.

Predicting feeding-tube dependence in patients following endotracheal extubation: a two-item swallowing screen.

BACKGROUND: To meet the surging demands for intubation and invasive ventilation as more COVID-19 patients begin their recovery, clinicians are challenged to find an ultra-brief and minimally invasive screen for postextubation dysphagia predicting feeding-tube dependence persisting for 72 h after extubation. METHODS: This study examined the predictive validity of a two-item swallowing screen on feeding-tube dependence over 72 h in patients following endotracheal extubation. Intensive-care-unit (ICU) patients (≥ 20 years) successfully extubated after ≥ 48 h endotracheal intubation were screened by trained nurses using the swallowing screen (comprising oral stereognosis and cough-reflex tests) 24 h postextubation. Feeding-tube dependence persisting for 72 h postextubation was abstracted from the medical record by an independent rater. To verify the results and cross-check whether the screen predicted penetration and/or aspiration during fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), participants agreeing to receive FEES were analyzed within 30 min of screening. RESULTS: The results showed that 95/123 participants (77.2%) failed the screen, which predicted ICU patients' prolonged (> 72 h) feeding-tube dependence, yielding sensitivity of 0.83, specificity of 0.35, and accuracy of 0.68. Failed-screen participants had 2.96-fold higher odds of feeding-tube dependence (95% CI, 1.13-7.76). For the 38 participants receiving FEES, the swallowing screen had 0.89 sensitivity to detect feeding-tube dependence and 0.86 sensitivity to predict penetration/aspiration, although specificity had room for improvement (0.36 and 0.21, respectively). CONCLUSION: This ultra-brief swallowing screen is sufficiently sensitive to identify high-risk patients for feeding-tube dependence persisting over 72 h after extubation. Once identified, a further assessment and care are indicated to ensure the prompt return of patients' oral feeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03284892, registered on September 15, 2017.

Post-extubation dysphagia and dysphonia amongst adults with COVID-19 in the Republic of Ireland: A prospective multi-site observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to (i) investigate post-extubation dysphagia and dysphonia amongst adults intubated with SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) and referred to speech and language therapy (SLT) in acute hospitals across the Republic of Ireland (ROI) between March and June 2020; (ii) identify variables predictive of post-extubation oral intake status and dysphonia and (iii) establish SLT rehabilitation needs and services provided to this cohort. DESIGN: A multi-site prospective observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred adults with confirmed COVID-19 who were intubated across eleven acute hospital sites in ROI and who were referred to SLT services between March and June 2020 inclusive. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Oral intake status, level of diet modification and perceptual voice quality. RESULTS: Based on initial SLT assessment, 90% required altered oral intake and 59% required tube feeding with 36% not allowed oral intake. Age (OR 1.064; 95% CI 1.018-1.112), proning (OR 3.671; 95% CI 1.128-11.943) and pre-existing respiratory disease (OR 5.863; 95% CI 1.521-11.599) were predictors of oral intake status post-extubation. Two-thirds (66%) presented with dysphonia post-extubation. Intubation injury (OR 10.471; 95% CI 1.060-103.466) and pre-existing respiratory disease (OR 24.196; 95% CI 1.609-363.78) were predictors of post-extubation voice quality. Thirty-seven per cent required dysphagia intervention post-extubation, whereas 20% needed intervention for voice. Dysphagia and dysphonia persisted in 27% and 37% cases, respectively, at hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: Post-extubation dysphagia and dysphonia were prevalent amongst adults with COVID-19 across the ROI. Predictors included iatrogenic factors and underlying respiratory disease. Prompt evaluation and intervention is needed to minimise complications and inform rehabilitation planning.

Aerosolisation in endonasal endoscopic pituitary surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine the particle size, concentration, airborne duration and spread during endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery in actual patients in a theatre setting. METHODS: This observational study recruited a convenience sample of three patients. Procedures were performed in a positive pressure operating room. Particle image velocimetry and spectrometry with air sampling were used for aerosol detection. RESULTS: Intubation and extubation generated small particles (< 5 µm) in mean concentrations 12 times greater than background noise (p < 0.001). The mean particle concentrations during endonasal access were 4.5 times greater than background (p = 0.01). Particles were typically large (> 75 µm), remained airborne for up to 10 s and travelled up to 1.1 m. Use of a microdebrider generated mean aerosol concentrations 18 times above baseline (p = 0.005). High-speed drilling did not produce aerosols greater than baseline. Pituitary tumour resection generated mean aerosol concentrations less than background (p = 0.18). Surgical drape removal generated small and large particles in mean concentrations 6.4 times greater than background (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intubation and extubation generate large amounts of small particles that remain suspended in air for long durations and disperse through theatre. Endonasal access and pituitary tumour resection generate smaller concentrations of larger particles which are airborne for shorter periods and travel shorter distances.

Clinical outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula in COVID-19 associated postextubation respiratory failure. A single-centre case series.

INTRODUCTION: A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an alternative device for oxygena-tion, which improves gas exchange and reduces the work of breathing. Postextubation respiratory failure causes increased morbidity and mortality. HFNC has been widely employed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to report a single-centre experience on the effectiveness and safety of HFNC in weaning COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine patients showed severe acute respiratory failure and interstitial pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2. After mechanical ventilation (5 Helmet CPAP, 4 invasive mechanical ventilation), they were de-escalated to HFNC. Settings were: 34-37°C, flow from 50 to 60 L min-1. FiO2 was set to achieve appropriate SpO2. RESULTS: Nine patients (4 females; age 63 ± 13.27 years; BMI 27.2 ± 4.27) showed a baseline PaO2/FiO2 of 109 ± 45 mm Hg. After a long course of ventilation all patients improved (PaO2/FiO2 336 ± 72 mm Hg). Immediately after initiation of HFNC (2 hours), PaO2/FiO2 was 254 ± 69.3 mm Hg. Mean ROX index at two hours was 11.17 (range: 7.38-14.4). It was consistent with low risk of HFNC failure. No difference was observed on lactate. After 48 hours of HFNC oxygen therapy (day 3), mean PaO2/FiO2 increased to 396 ± 83.5 mm Hg. All patients recovered from respiratory failure after 7 ± 4.1 days. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC might be helpful in weaning COVID-19 respiratory failure. Effectiveness and comfort should be assessed between 2 and 48 hours. Clinical outcomes, oxygenation, and ROX index should be considered, to rule out the need for intubation. Further evidence is required for firm conclusions.

Safe extubation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Extubation of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a high risk procedure for both patients and staff. Shortages in personal protective equipment (PPE) and the high volume of contact staff have with COVID-19 patients has generated an interest in ways to reduce exposure that might be feasible especially during pandemic times and in resource limited healthcare settings. The development of portable barrier hood devices (or intubation/extubation boxes) is an area of interest for many clinicians due to the theoretical reduction in aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2, the causative virus for COVID-19. We present a review of the current literature along with recommendations concerning safe extubation during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, a focused summary on the use of portable barrier hood devices, during the recent surge of COVID-19 is highlighted.