Impact of Airway Humidification Strategy in Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Humidification of inspiratory gases is mandatory in all mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs, either with heated humidifiers (HHs) or with heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs). In patients with COVID-19, the choice of the humidification device may have relevant impact on patients' management as demonstrated in recent studies. We reported data from 2 ICUs using either HME or HH. METHODS: Data from patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during the first wave in 2 ICUs in Québec City were reviewed. In one ICU, HMEs were used, whereas heated-wire HHs were used in the other ICU. We compared ventilator settings and arterial blood gases at day one after adjustment of ventilator settings. Episodes of endotracheal tube occlusions (ETOs) or subocclusions and a strategy to limit the risk of under-humidification were reported. On a bench test, we measured humidity with psychrometry with HH at different ambient temperature and evaluated the relation with heater plate temperature. RESULTS: We reported data from 20 subjects positive for SARS-Cov-2, including 6 in the ICU using HME and 14 in the ICU using HH. In the HME group, PaCO2 was higher (48 vs 42 mm Hg) despite higher minute ventilation (171 vs 145 mL/kg/min predicted body weight [PBW]). We also reported 3 ETOs occurring in the ICU using HH. The hygrometric bench study reported a strong correlation between heater plate temperatures of the HH and humidity delivered. After implementation of measures to avoid under-humidification, including heater plate temperature monitoring, no more ETOs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the humidification device used in subjects with COVID-19 had a relevant impact on ventilation efficiency (increased CO2 removal with lower dead space) and on complications related to low humidity, including ETOs that may be present with heated-wire HHs when used with high ambient temperatures.

In vitro comparison of unit dose vs infusion pump administration of albuterol via high-flow nasal cannula in toddlers.

OBJECTIVES: Transnasal pulmonary aerosol delivery using high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) devices has become a popular route of aerosol administration in toddlers. Clinically, albuterol is administered using an infusion pump or unit doses. However, little evidence is available to compare the two administration strategies. METHODS: A toddler manikin (15 kg) with appropriate anatomic airway was connected with collecting filter to a simulator of distressed breathing. HFNC device with mesh nebulizer placed at the inlet of a humidifier at 37°C, with the gas flow set at 25 and 3.75 L/min. Five milligrams of albuterol was delivered in all experiments. With infusion pump administration, albuterol concentrations of 5 and 1 mg/mL were delivered at 4 and 20 mL/hr for 15 minutes. With unit dose administration, 1 mL (5 mg/mL) and 2 mL (2.5 mg/mL) of albuterol were nebulized. Additional tests with mouth open and nebulizers via mask were using 5 mg/1 mL for mesh nebulizer and 5 mg/3 mL for jet nebulizer (n = 3). The drug was eluted from the filter and assayed with UV spectrophotometry (276 nm). RESULTS: The inhaled dose was higher with unit dose than infusion pump administration with gas flows of 25 L/min (2.66 ± 0.38 vs 1.16 ± 0.28%; P = .004) and 3.75 L/min (10.51 ± 1.29 vs 8.58 ± 0.68%; P = .025). During unit dose administration, compared with closed-mouth breathing, open-mouth breathing generated a higher inhaled dose at 3.75 L/min and lower inhaled dose at 25 L/min. Compared to the nebulizers via mask with both open and closed-mouth breathing, nebulization via HFNC at 3.75 L/min generated greater inhaled dose, while HFNC at 25 L/min generated lower inhaled dose. CONCLUSIONS: During transnasal aerosol delivery, the inhaled dose was higher with medication administrated using unit dose than using an infusion pump.

Transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange ('THRIVE') in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange ('THRIVE') has been classified as a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure and is strongly discouraged, despite a lack of conclusive evidence on its safety. METHODS: This study aimed to investigate the safety of transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange usage and its impact on staff members. A prospective study was conducted on all transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange cases performed in our unit between March and July 2020. RESULTS: During the study period, 18 patients with a variety of airway pathologies were successfully managed with transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange. For each case, 7-10 staff members were present. Appropriate personal protective equipment protocols were strictly implemented and adhered to. None of the staff involved reported symptoms or tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019, up to at least a month following their exposure to transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange. CONCLUSION: With strictly correct personal protective equipment use, transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange can be safely employed for carefully selected patients in the current pandemic, without jeopardising the health and safety of the ENT and anaesthetic workforce.

Effective inactivation of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus on contaminated surgery masks by low-concentrated sodium hypochlorite dispersion.

Coronaviruses present a considerable concern for humans and animals. The current world- wide pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 virus showed many gaps in understanding of coronaviruses spread and transmission. Because of lack of effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 the only preventive measures are represented by wearing protective masks and gloves thus limiting potential risk of contact with the airborne virus. Inversely, the limited time of protective function of the masks presents another drawback of their use. Therefore, the application of disinfection agent dispersed on the surface of protective masks may enhance their effectivity and safety of their application. The aim of the study was to examine the virucidal efficacy of low-concentra- ted sodium hypochlorite dispersed using ultrasonic humidifier on the surface of surgery masks. The study was conducted using SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus, namely porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) representing a model with similar biophysical properties and genomic structure to human coronaviruses. Five different concentrations of the disinfectant with different content of sodium hypochlorite were selected for the study. A final concentration of 0.228 g/L sodium hypochlorite effectively inactivated the PED virus and may support the biosafety of masks usage.

COVID-19 and Total Laryngectomy-A Report of Two Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To date, no cases have been reported on the effects of COVID-19 in laryngectomees. CASE PRESENTATION: We herein presented two clinical cases of laryngectomized patients affected by COVID-19, detailing their clinical course and complications. DISCUSSION: In our experience, permanent tracheostomy did not significantly affect the choice of treatment. However, dedicated devices and repeated tracheal toilettes may be needed to deal with oxygen-therapy-related tracheal crusting. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, laryngectomees should be considered a vulnerable population that may be at risk for worse outcomes of COVID-19 due to anatomical changes in their airways. The role of the ENT specialist is to guide airway management and inform the support-staff regarding specific needs of these patients.