Face mask versus nasal prong or nasopharyngeal tube for neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend positive pressure ventilation via face mask or nasal prongs at birth. Using a nasal interface may have the potential to improve outcomes for newborn infants. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether nasal prong/nasopharyngeal tube versus face mask during positive pressure ventilation of infants born <37 weeks' gestation in the delivery room reduces in-hospital mortality and morbidity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (through PubMed), Google Scholar and EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through August 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing nasal prong/nasopharyngeal tube versus face mask during positive pressure ventilation of infants born <37 weeks' gestation in the delivery room. DATA ANALYSIS: Risk of bias was assessed using the Covidence Collaboration Tool, results were pooled into a meta-analysis using a random effects model. MAIN OUTCOME: In-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Five RCTs enrolling 873 infants were combined into a meta-analysis. There was no statistical difference in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.52, p=0.92, I2=11%), rate of chest compressions in the delivery room (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.33, p=0.13, I2=28%), rate of intraventricular haemorrhage (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.70, p=0.13, I2=0%) or delivery room intubations in infants ventilated with a nasal prong/tube (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39,1.02, p=0.06, I2=52%). CONCLUSION: In infants born <37 weeks' gestation, in-hospital mortality and morbidity were similar following positive pressure ventilation during initial stabilisation with a nasal prong/tube or a face mask.

Video-based reflection on neonatal interventions during COVID-19 using eye-tracking glasses: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the experience with, and the feasibility of, point-of-view video recordings using eye-tracking glasses for training and reviewing neonatal interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Observational prospective single-centre study. SETTING: Neonatal intensive care unit at the Leiden University Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: All local neonatal healthcare providers. INTERVENTION: There were two groups of participants: proceduralists, who wore eye-tracking glasses during procedures, and observers who later watched the procedures as part of a video-based reflection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the feasibility of, and the proceduralists and observers' experience with, the point-of-view eye-tracking videos as an additional tool for bedside teaching and video-based reflection. RESULTS: We conducted 12 point-of-view recordings on 10 different patients (median gestational age of 30.9±3.5 weeks and weight of 1764 g) undergoing neonatal intubation (n=5), minimally invasive surfactant therapy (n=5) and umbilical line insertion (n=2). We conducted nine video-based observations with a total of 88 observers. The use of point-of-view recordings was perceived as feasible. Observers further reported the point-of-view recordings to be an educational benefit for them and a potentially instructional tool during COVID-19. CONCLUSION: We proved the practicability of eye-tracking glasses for point-of-view recordings of neonatal procedures and videos for observation, educational sessions and logistics considerations, especially with the COVID-19 pandemic distancing measures reducing bedside teaching opportunities.

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO2/FiO2 may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.

ANTECEDENTES: Las cánulas nasales de alto flujo (HFNC) administran flujos elevados de una mezcla humedecida de aire y oxígeno a través de cánulas nasales de gran calibre y pueden ser útiles para proporcionar asistencia respiratoria a los adultos que presentan insuficiencia respiratoria aguda, o que tienen riesgo de presentarla, en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Esta es una actualización de una versión anterior de la revisión. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia de las HFNC en comparación con la oxigenoterapia estándar, o la ventilación no invasiva (VNI) o la ventilación con presión positiva no invasiva (VPPNI), para la asistencia respiratoria de adultos en la UCI. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science y en el Registro Cochrane de covid­19 (17 de abril de 2020), registros de ensayos clínicos (6 de abril de 2020) y se realizaron búsquedas de citas prospectivas y retrospectivas. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los estudios controlados aleatorizados (ECA) con un diseño de grupos paralelos o cruzados que compararon el uso de HFNC versus otro tipo de asistencia respiratoria no invasiva (oxigenoterapia estándar a través de cánulas nasales o mascarilla; o VNI o VPPNI que incluía la presión positiva continua en las vías respiratorias y la presión positiva de dos niveles en las vías respiratorias) en adultos ingresados en la UCI. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los procedimientos metodológicos estándar previstos por la Colaboración Cochrane. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 31 estudios (22 de grupos paralelos y nueve de diseño cruzado) con 5136 participantes; esta actualización incluyó 20 estudios nuevos. Veintiún estudios compararon la HFNC con la oxigenoterapia estándar, y 13 compararon la HFNC con la VNI o la VPPNI; tres estudios incluyeron ambas comparaciones. Se encontraron 51 estudios en curso (con una estimación de 12 807 participantes) y 19 estudios en espera de clasificación en los que no fue posible determinar la información de elegibilidad del estudio. En 18 estudios el tratamiento se inició después de la extubación. En el resto de los estudios, los participantes no habían recibido de forma previa ventilación mecánica. HFNC versus oxigenoterapia estándar La HFNC podría conducir a un menor fracaso del tratamiento, según lo indicado por el escalamiento a tipos alternativos de oxigenoterapia (razón de riesgos [RR] 0,62; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,45 a 0,86; 15 estudios, 3044 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). La HFNC probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la mortalidad cuando se compara con la oxigenoterapia estándar (RR 0,96; IC del 95%: 0,82 a 1,11; 11 estudios, 2673 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). La HFNC probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia con respecto a los casos de neumonía (RR 0,72; IC del 95%: 0,48 a 1,09; cuatro estudios, 1057 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada), y no se sabe con certeza su efecto sobre la mucosa nasal ni el traumatismo cutáneo (RR 3,66; IC del 95%: 0,43 a 31,48; dos estudios, 617 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Se encontró evidencia de certeza baja de que la HFNC podría dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la duración de la estancia en la UCI según el tipo de asistencia respiratoria utilizada (DM 0,12 días; IC del 95%: ­0,03 a 0,27; siete estudios, 1014 participantes). No se sabe con certeza si la HFNC dio lugar a alguna diferencia en el cociente entre la presión parcial de oxígeno arterial y la fracción de oxígeno inspirado (PaO2/FiO2) en las primeras 24 horas del tratamiento (DM 10,34 mmHg; IC del 95%: ­17,31 a 38; cinco estudios, 600 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se sabe con certeza si la HFNC dio lugar a alguna diferencia en la comodidad a corto plazo (DM 0,31; IC del 95%: ­0,60 a 1,22; cuatro estudios, 662 participantes, evidencia de certeza muy baja), o en la comodidad a largo plazo (DM 0,59; IC del 95%: ­2,29 a 3,47; dos estudios, 445 participantes, evidencia de certeza muy baja). HFNC versus VNI o VPPNI No se encontró evidencia de una diferencia entre los grupos en el fracaso del tratamiento cuando se utilizó la HFNC después de la extubación o sin el uso previo de ventilación mecánica (RR 0,98; IC del 95%: 0,78 a 1,22; cinco estudios, 1758 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), ni en la mortalidad hospitalaria (RR 0,92; IC del 95%: 0,64 a 1,31; cinco estudios, 1758 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No hay certeza sobre el efecto del uso de la HFNC en la incidencia de la neumonía (RR 0,51; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 1,52; tres estudios, 1750 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja), y la HFNC podría dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en el barotraumatismo (RR 1,15; IC del 95%: 0,42 a 3,14; un estudio, 830 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). La HFNC podría suponer una diferencia escasa o nula en la duración de la estancia en la UCI (DM ­0,72 días; IC del 95%: ­2,85 a 1,42; dos estudios, 246 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). El cociente PaO2/FiO2 podría ser menor hasta 24 horas con el uso de la HFNC (DM ­58,10 mmHg; IC del 95%: ­71,68 a ­44,51; tres estudios, 1086 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se sabe si la HFNC mejoró la comodidad a corto plazo cuando se midió mediante puntuaciones de comodidad (DM 1,33; IC del 95%: 0,74 a 1,92; dos estudios, 258 participantes) y respuestas a cuestionarios (RR 1,30; IC del 95%: 1,10 a 1,53; un estudio, 168 participantes); la evidencia para la comodidad a corto plazo fue de certeza muy baja. Ningún estudio informó sobre la mucosa nasal ni el traumatismo cutáneo. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La HFNC podría dar lugar a un menor fracaso del tratamiento en comparación con la oxigenoterapia estándar, pero probablemente suponga una escasa o nula diferencia en el fracaso del tratamiento en comparación con la VNI o la VPPNI. Para la mayoría de los demás desenlaces de la revisión, no se encontró evidencia de una diferencia en el efecto. Sin embargo, la certeza de la evidencia se consideró baja o muy baja. Se encontró un gran número de estudios en curso; incluirlos en futuras actualizaciones podría aumentar la certeza o podría alterar la dirección de estos efectos.

Pediatric bronchoscopy: recent advances and clinical challenges.

Introduction: During the last 40 years equipment has been improved with smaller instruments and sufficient size working channels. This has ensured that bronchoscopy offers therapeutic and interventional options.Areas covered: We provide a review of recent advances and clinical challenges in pediatric bronchoscopy. This includes single-use bronchoscopes, endobronchial ultrasound, and cryoprobe. Bronchoscopy in persistent preschool wheezing and asthma is included. The indications for interventional bronchoscopy have amplified and included balloon dilatation, endoscopic intubation, the use of airway stents, whole lung lavage, closing of fistulas and air leak, as well as an update on removal of foreign bodies. Others include the use of laser and microdebrider in airway surgery. Experience with bronchoscope during the COVID-19 pandemic has been included in this review. PubMed was searched for articles on pediatric bronchoscopy, including rigid bronchoscopy as well as interventional bronchoscopy with a focus on reviewing literature in the past 5 years.Expert opinion: As the proficiency of pediatric interventional pulmonologists continues to grow more interventions are being performed. There is a scarcity of published evidence in this field. Courses for pediatric interventional bronchoscopy need to be developed. The COVID-19 experience resulted in safer bronchoscopy practice for all involved.

Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Single-center Experience.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Tracheostomy performed on patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may lead to the infection of operators and medical staff. To date, there are no established methods of infection control. The aim of this study was to provide helpful and useful information regarding tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on 12 patients with severe COVID-19 who were intubated and underwent tracheostomy in our hospital. RESULTS: Percutaneous tracheostomy was performed in eight cases, and open tracheostomy was performed in four cases. Open tracheostomy in the operating room was performed under a negative pressure closed-space system using a surgical drape to prevent aerosolization. CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that bedside percutaneous tracheostomy may be a useful option in patients with COVID-19. In cases where percutaneous tracheostomy is anticipated to be difficult, open tracheostomy using a negative pressure closure may be useful in preventing aerosolization and reducing the risk of infection of healthcare workers.

Novel 2019 coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): An updated overview for emergency clinicians

The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has quickly become a worldwide threat to health, travel, and commerce. This overview analyzes the best information from the early research, including epidemiologic and demographic features from SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV viruses; lessons learned from the experience of an emergency physician in Northern Italy, where the outbreak has devastated the healthcare system; evidence on transmission and prevention through safe use of PPE; evidence and advice on SARS-CoV-2 testing and co-infection; management options; airway management options; steps for rapid sequence intubation in the ED and managing disaster ventilation; and information on managing pediatric and pregnant patients.