Multimodal opioid-sparing pain management after lung transplantation and the impact of liposomal bupivacaine intercostal nerve block.

Opioid analgesics are commonly used post-lung transplant, but have many side effects and are associated with worse outcomes. We conducted a retrospective review of all lung transplant recipients who were treated with a multimodal opioid-sparing pain protocol. The use of liposomal bupivacaine intercostal nerve block was variable due to hospital restrictions. The primary objective was to describe opioid requirements and patient-reported pain scores early post-lung transplant and to assess the impact of intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine intercostal nerve block. We treated 64 lung transplant recipients with our protocol. Opioid utilization decreased to a mean of 43 milligram oral morphine equivalents by postoperative day 4. Median pain scores peaked at 4 on postoperative day 1 and decreased thereafter. Only three patients were discharged home with opioids, all of whom were taking opioid agonist therapy pre-transplant for opioid use disorder. Patients who received liposomal bupivacaine intercostal nerve block in the operating room had a significant reduction in opioid consumption over postoperative day 1 through 4 (228 mg vs. 517 mg, P= .032). A multimodal opioid-sparing pain management protocol is feasible and resulted in weaning of opioids prior to hospital discharge.

Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis. SETTING: Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City. PATIENTS: Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7-12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16-24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34-5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, -15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Early Outcomes From Early Tracheostomy for Patients With COVID-19.

Importance: Decision-making in the timing of tracheostomy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has centered on the intersection of long-standing debates on the benefits of early vs late tracheostomy, assumptions about timelines of infectivity of the novel coronavirus, and concern over risk to surgeons performing tracheostomy. Multiple consensus guidelines recommend avoiding or delaying tracheostomy, without evidence to indicate anticipated improvement in outcomes as a result. Objective: To assess outcomes from early tracheostomy in the airway management of patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective medical record review was completed of 148 patients with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation at a single tertiary-care medical center in New York City from March 1 to May 7, 2020. Interventions: Open or percutaneous tracheostomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were time from symptom onset to (1) endotracheal intubation, (2) tracheostomy; time from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy; time from tracheostomy to (1) tracheostomy tube downsizing, (2) decannulation; total time on mechanical ventilation; and total length of stay. Results: Participants included 148 patients, 120 men and 28 women, with an overall mean (SD) age of 58.1 (15.8) years. Mean (SD; median) time from symptom onset to intubation was 10.57 (6.58; 9) days; from symptom onset to tracheostomy, 22.76 (8.84; 21) days; and from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy, 12.23 (6.82; 12) days. The mean (SD; median) time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation was 33.49 (18.82; 27) days; from tracheostomy to first downsize, 23.02 (13.76; 19) days; and from tracheostomy to decannulation, 30.16 (16.00; 26) days. The mean (SD; median) length of stay for all patients was 51.29 (23.66; 45) days. Timing of tracheostomy was significantly associated with length of stay: median length of stay was 40 days in those who underwent early tracheostomy (within 10 days of endotracheal intubation) and 49 days in those who underwent late tracheostomy (median difference, -8; 95% CI, -15 to -1). In a competing risks model with death as the competing risk, the late tracheostomy group was 16% less likely to discontinue mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.28). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study from the first 2 months of the pandemic in New York City provides an opportunity to reconsider guidelines for tracheostomy for patients with COVID-19. Findings demonstrated noninferiority of early tracheostomy and challenges recommendations to categorically delay or avoid tracheostomy in this patient population. When aligned with emerging evidence about the timeline of infectivity of the novel coronavirus, this approach may optimize outcomes from tracheostomy while keeping clinicians safe.

A Simple Prioritization Change to Lung Transplant Allocation May Result in Improved Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The lung allocation score (LAS) significantly improved outcomes and wait list mortality in lung transplantation. However, mortality remains high for the sickest wait list candidates despite additional changes to allocation distance. Regulatory considerations of overhauling the current lung allocation system have met significant resistance, and changes would require years to implement. This study evaluates whether a modest change to the current system by prioritization of only high-LAS lung transplant candidates would result in lowered wait list mortality. METHODS: The Thoracic Simulated Allocation Model was used to evaluate all lung transplant candidates and donor lungs recovered between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2011. Current lung allocation rules (initial offer within a 250-nautical mile radius for ABO-identical then compatible offers) were run. Allocation was then changed for only patients with an LAS of50 or higher (high-LAS) to be prioritized within a 500-nautical mile radius with no stratification between ABO-identical and compatible offers. Ten iterations of each model were run. Primary end points were wait list mortality and posttransplant 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 6538 wait list candidates and transplant recipients were evaluated per iteration, for a total of 130,760 simulated patients. Compared with current allocation, the adjusted model had a 23.3% decrease in wait list mortality. Posttransplant 1-year survival was minimally affected. CONCLUSIONS: Without overhauling the entire system, simple prioritization changes to the allocation system for high-LAS candidates may lead to decreased wait list mortality and increased organ use. Importantly, these changes do not appear to lead to clinically significant changes in posttransplant 1-year survival.

Management and tolerability of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir pharmacotherapy in hepatitis C viremic heart and lung transplant recipients.

We conducted a retrospective review of thoracic transplant recipients (22 heart and 16 lung transplant recipients) prospectively enrolled in a single-center observational study of HCV NAT+ organ transplantation in HCV NAT- recipients. All recipients were treated with 8 weeks of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir (GP) for HCV viremia in addition to standard triple immunosuppression post-transplant. Thoracic transplant recipients of HCV NAT- organs were used as a control (24 heart and 22 lung transplant recipients). Our primary outcome was to assess the effect of GP on tacrolimus dose requirements. Secondary objectives included assessing drug interactions with common post-transplant medications, adverse effects, and the need to hold or discontinue GP therapy. The median tacrolimus concentration-to-dose ratio (CDR) in the cohort was 184 (99-260) during GP therapy and 154 (78-304) over the first month after GP (P = .79). Trends in median tacrolimus CDR were similar on a per-week basis and per-patient basis. In three instances, concomitant posaconazole and GP led to hyperbilirubinemia and interruption of posaconazole. GP therapy was held in one heart transplant recipient and discontinued in another due to unresolving hyperbilirubinemia. Utilization of GP to treat HCV viremia post-thoracic transplant is feasible and safe, but requires modifications to post-transplant pharmacotherapy and careful monitoring for adverse effects.

Novel Percutaneous Tracheostomy for Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is a worldwide pandemic, with many patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy is not recommended by current guidelines as it is considered a superspreading event owing to aerosolization that unduly risks health care workers. METHODS: Patients with severe COVID-19 who were on mechanical ventilation for 5 days or longer were evaluated for percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. We developed a novel percutaneous tracheostomy technique that placed the bronchoscope alongside the endotracheal tube, not inside it. That improved visualization during the procedure and continued standard mechanical ventilation after positioning the inflated endotracheal tube cuff in the distal trachea. This technique offers a significant mitigation for the risk of virus aerosolization during the procedure. RESULTS: From March 10 to April 15, 2020, 270 patients with COVID-19 required invasive mechanical ventilation at New York University Langone Health Manhattan's campus; of those, 98 patients underwent percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. The mean time from intubation to the procedure was 10.6 ± 5 days. Currently, 32 patients (33%) do not require mechanical ventilatory support, 19 (19%) have their tracheostomy tube downsized, and 8 (8%) were decannulated. Forty patients (41%) remain on full ventilator support, and 19 (19%) are weaning from mechanical ventilation. Seven patients (7%) died as a result of respiratory and multiorgan failure. Tracheostomy-related bleeding was the most common complication (5 patients). None of health care providers has had symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our percutaneous tracheostomy technique appears to be safe and effective for COVID-19 patients and safe for health care workers.