Does a decannulation protocol exist in COVID-19 patients? The importance of working in a multiprofessional team.

As a Covid Hub in Emilia Romagna, we have experienced an increasing number of tracheostomized patients, prompting us to develop a standardized decannulation protocol for COVID-19 ARDS patients. Currently, there are no guidelines or protocols for decannulation in this population, and few studies have investigated the early outcomes of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients, with no detailed analysis of the decannulation process. We recognized the importance of mutual reliance among our team members and the significant achievements we made compared to previous decannulation methods. Through the optimization of the decannulation process, we identified a clear, safe, and repeatable method based on clinical best practice and literature evidence. We decided to implement an existing standardized decannulation protocol, which was originally designed for severe brain-damaged patients, due to the growing number of COVID-19 patients with tracheostomy. This protocol was designed for daily practice and aimed to provide a uniform approach to using devices like fenestrated cannulas, speaking valves, and capping. The results of our implementation include:expanding the applicability of the protocol beyond severe brain-damaged patients to different populations and settings (in this case, patients subjected to a long period of sedation and invasive ventilation)early activation of speech therapy to facilitate weaning from the cannula and recovery of physiological swallowing and phonationearly activation of otolaryngologist evaluation to identify organic problems related to prolonged intubation, tracheostomy, and ventilation and address proper speech therapy treatmentactivation of more fluid and effective management paths for decannulation with a multiprofessional team.

The management of endoscopic retrograde cholangio- pancreatography-related infections risk: results of an italian survey at regional level.

Background and aim: Among the Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) adverse events, an increasingly arising problem is the transmission of Multi Drug Resistant (MDR) Bacteria through duodenoscopes. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the current clinical practice of management of ERCP associated infections in Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Methods: An online survey was developed including 12 questions on management of ERCP associated infections risk. The survey was proposed to all 12 endoscopy centers in Emilia Romagna that perform at least > 200 ERCPs per year. Results: 11 centers completed the survey (92%). Among all risk factors of ERCP infections, hospitalization in intensive care units, immunosuppressant therapies, and previous MDR infections have achieved a 80 % minimum of concurrence by our respondents. The majority of them did not have a formalized document in their hospital describing categories and risk factors helpful in the detection of patients undergoing ERCP with an high-level infective risk (9/11, 82%). Most centers (8/11, 72%) do not perform screening in patients at risk of ERCP infections. Post procedural monitoring is performed by 6 of 11 centers (55%). Conclusion: Our survey showed that, at least at regional level, there is a lack of procedures and protocols related to the management of patients at risk of ERCP infections.

Recommendations for the management of biofilm: a consensus document.

The potential impact of biofilm on healing in acute and chronic wounds is one of the most controversial current issues in wound care. A significant amount of laboratory-based research has been carried out on this topic, however, in 2013 the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) pointed out the lack of guidance for managing biofilms in clinical practice and solicited the need for guidelines and further clinical research. In response to this challenge, the Italian Nursing Wound Healing Society (AISLeC) initiated a project which aimed to achieve consensus among a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional international panel of experts to identify what could be considered part of 'good clinical practice' with respect to the recognition and management of biofilms in acute and chronic wounds. The group followed a systematic approach, developed by the GRADE working group, to define relevant questions and clinical recommendations raised in clinical practice. An independent librarian retrieved and screened approximately 2000 pertinent published papers to produce tables of levels of evidence. After a smaller focus group had a multistep structured discussion, and a formal voting process had been completed, ten therapeutic interventions were identified as being strongly recommendable for clinical practice, while another four recommendations were graded as being 'weak'. The panel subsequently formulated a preliminary statement (although with a weak grade of agreement): 'provided that other causes that prevent optimal wound healing have been ruled out, chronic wounds are chronically infected'. All members of the panel agreed that there is a paucity of reliable, well-conducted clinical trials which have produced clear evidence related to the effects of biofilm presence. In the meantime it was agreed that expert-based guidelines were needed to be developed for the recognition and management of biofilms in wounds and for the best design of future clinical trials. This is a fundamental and urgent task for both laboratory-based scientists and clinicians.

Effect of a wound cleansing solution on wound bed preparation and inflammation in chronic wounds: a single-blind RCT.

OBJECTIVE: Research into surfactant solutions for the debridement of chronic wounds suggests that surfactants may support wound bed preparation (WBP) in chronic wounds, however their efficacy has not been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Our aim was to assess the clinical efficacy of a propylbetaine-polihexanide (PP) solution versus normal saline (NS) solution in WBP, assessing inflammatory signs and wound size reduction in patients with pressure ulcers (PUs) or vascular leg ulcers. METHOD: In a single-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) patients were randomly allocated to two groups and treated with either propylbetaine-polihexanide (PP) solution (Prontosan) or NS. Wounds were assessed using the Bates-Jensen wound assessment tool (BWAT). Assessments took place at inclusion (T0), day 7 (T1), day 14 (T2), day 21 (T3), and day 28 (T4). Outcomes were analysed using a two-tailed Student's t-test. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were included. Both groups had similar demographics, clinical status, and wound characteristics. Data analysis showed statistically significant differences between T0 and T4 for the following outcomes: BWAT total score, p=0.0248; BWAT score for inflammatory items, p=0.03; BWAT scores for wound size reduction (p=0.049) and granulation tissue improvement (p=0.043), all in favour of PP. The assessment of pain did not show any significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The study results showed significantly higher efficacy of the PP solution versus NS solution, in reducing inflammatory signs and accelerating the healing of vascular leg ulcers and PUs. This evidence supports the update of protocols for the care of chronic wounds. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The authors have no conflict of interest regarding this research. This is an investigator initiated trial. B. Braun Milano SpA kindly provided the material under investigation for both treatment groups, and paid the Ethics Committees' application fees in all participating centres.