ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Secondary pneumonia has a significant clinical impact on critically ill patients with COVID-19. AIM: Considering potential geographic variations, this study explores the clinical implications of secondary pneumonia within East Asian populations. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study enrolled critical COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care units (ICUs) admission in Taiwan from December 31, 2020, to June 1, 2022. FINDINGS: Among the 187 critical COVID-19 patients, 80 (42.8%) developed secondary pneumonia. The primary causative pathogens were gram-negative bacilli (GNB) (76.8%). Gram-positive cocci and fungi were mainly observed during the initial two weeks of ICU stay. Notably, the incidence of pulmonary aspergillosis was 9.2% during the first week of ICU stay and all Staphylococcus aureus were susceptible to methicillin. Multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) were responsible for 28.3% of the cases, exhibiting significantly longer ICU stays compared to the non-MDRO group (median, 27 vs. 14 days, P < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were associated with a significantly increased risk of secondary pneumonia. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with secondary pneumonia than in those without (37.7% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.02) and survival analysis demonstrated gram-negative bacilli-related secondary pneumonia contributed to a worse prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary pneumonia in critical COVID-19 patients significantly raised in-hospital mortality and extended hospital and ICU stays. Moreover, the presence of GNB notably predicted an unfavorable prognosis.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare patient experiences during bronchoscopy procedures using either topical anesthesia (TA) or monitored anesthesia care (MA). The goal was to identify circumstances where patients could achieve similar levels of tolerance and satisfaction using only TA, especially in resource-limited settings. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients who underwent bronchoscopy with either TA or MA. Data collected included demographics, indications for bronchoscopy, procedure time, and complications during the procedure. A quality assurance survey was administered to assess patient experience and satisfaction with both procedures. A pre-specified subgroup analysis was performed based on procedure invasiveness and time. RESULTS: This study enrolled 350 (TA 251; MA 99) patients, with an average age of 65 years. Main indications for bronchoscopy included tumor diagnosis (38%), esophageal cancer staging (18%), and pulmonary infection (17%). The average duration of the procedures was 20 min, with MA being associated with a significantly longer procedure time than TA (31 min vs. 16 min; P < 0.001). The overall satisfaction rating with bronchoscopy was significantly higher in the MA group (visual analogue scale, 8.9 vs. 8.2; P = 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that when less invasive or shorter procedures were performed, TA patients reported tolerance and satisfaction levels comparable to MA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bronchoscopy with MA offered patients a better experience and greater satisfaction; however, in settings with limited resources, TA alone may provide similar levels of patient tolerance and satisfaction during less invasive or shorter procedures.
