Endobronchial Intubation to Facilitate Extraluminal Bronchial Blocker Placement in Young Children: A Retrospective Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: Extraluminal bronchial blocker placement has become a well-accepted approach to one-lung ventilation in young children. In some cases, technical issues with placement may require alternative approaches to correct bronchial blocker positioning. The primary aim of this study was to review the authors' experience with using endobronchial intubation to facilitate extraluminal bronchial blocker placement in young children. DESIGN: Single-center case series of pediatric patients undergoing thoracic surgery and one-lung ventilation using a bronchial blocker. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Pediatric patients < three years of age undergoing thoracic surgery and one-lung ventilation who underwent bronchial blocker placement using endobronchial intubation to facilitate blocker placement. In all patients, the bronchial blocker was inserted through a selectively mainstemmed endotracheal tube to facilitate blocker positioning. INTERVENTIONS: No interventions were performed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen patients were identified after a query of the local electronic health record. There were five right-sided and ten left-sided placements in this cohort. Bronchial blocker placement was successful in 14 of 15 patients using endobronchial intubation to facilitate bronchial blocker placement. In one patient, the bronchial blocker was discovered in the nonsurgical bronchus, following placement with this technique. The bronchial blocker was repositioned manually into the desired mainstem bronchus prior to lateral positioning. CONCLUSIONS: Mainstem intubation can be used to facilitate bronchial blocker placement in young children and represents an alternative approach to extraluminal bronchial blocker placement.

Aspirin Use Is Associated With Decreased Mechanical Ventilation, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and In-Hospital Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability and increased thrombotic risk in critically ill patients. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to multiple hospitals in the United States between March 2020 and July 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for study outcomes were calculated using Cox-proportional hazards models after adjustment for the effects of demographics and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Four hundred twelve patients were included in the study. Three hundred fourteen patients (76.3%) did not receive aspirin, while 98 patients (23.7%) received aspirin within 24 hours of admission or 7 days before admission. Aspirin use had a crude association with less mechanical ventilation (35.7% aspirin versus 48.4% nonaspirin, P = .03) and ICU admission (38.8% aspirin versus 51.0% nonaspirin, P = .04), but no crude association with in-hospital mortality (26.5% aspirin versus 23.2% nonaspirin, P = .51). After adjusting for 8 confounding variables, aspirin use was independently associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation (adjusted HR, 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.85, P = .007), ICU admission (adjusted HR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.38-0.85, P = .005), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.31-0.90, P = .02). There were no differences in major bleeding (P = .69) or overt thrombosis (P = .82) between aspirin users and nonaspirin users. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use may be associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial is needed to assess whether a causal relationship exists between aspirin use and reduced lung injury and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

A Prospective Observational Comparison of Two Approaches to Anesthetizing the Trachea for Awake Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Multiple techniques have been described for anesthetizing the lower glottis and trachea prior to awake fiberoptic intubation. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate whether direct application of local anesthetic to the lower airway via an epidural catheter under direct vision is equally efficacious when compared to use of a transtracheal block in adult patients with an anticipated difficult airway. METHODS: Patients age >18 years requiring awake fiberoptic intubation who underwent upper and lower airway topicalization were observed prospectively. Following topicalization of the upper airway, patients underwent either a transtracheal block or had their trachea and lower glottis anesthetized under direct vision via dispersion of local anesthetic through a multi-orifice epidural catheter. Choice of technique was at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist. The primary outcome was defined as the degree of coughing observed at the time of intubation based on a 4-point ordinal scale. RESULTS: Awake intubations in 88 patients were observed with 44 patients undergoing transtracheal block and 44 patients undergoing the epidural catheter technique. Degree of coughing with intubation was similar for each approach with a coughing score of (0, IQR (0,1)) versus (0, IQR (0,1)) in the epidural catheter and transtracheal groups respectively (p = 0.385). Duration of procedure was less in the transtracheal group (1.35 ± 1.54 min) vs. epidural catheter approach (2.86 ± 2.20 min) (p< 0.001). CONCLUSION: The epidural catheter and transtracheal approach appear to be equally effective at preventing coughing with intubation during awake fiberoptic intubation.

Sticks or Carrots? How an Easy-to-Implement Incentive Plan Improved Our Performance on the In-training Exam.

BACKGROUND: In-training examinations (ITEs) are commonly used by residency programs to measure competency in their respective fields. It has been demonstrated that success on the ITE is correlated to First Time Pass Rate (FTPR) on the boards. Therefore, it is important to motivate residents to perform well on these exams. Previous studies indicate positive incentivization may contribute to improvement on examinations. The objective of our study was to determine whether introduction of a positive incentive could improve resident performance on the ITE and/or FTPR on the advanced certifying exam. METHODS: A positive incentive was introduced in 2017 (certificate of commendation, curriculum vitae honor, public recognition, and $500 in their books/travel allowance) to residents who achieved the target score on the ITE (80th percentile). A survey was then provided to these residents to determine which incentives contributed most to their motivation. RESULTS: Before the incentivization, 21 (15.1%) of the previous 149 senior residents reached the target score on the annual ITE. After incentivization, this improved to 28 (30.9%) of 81 (P = .0056). The FTPR on the advanced certifying exam was 90% before incentivization and 97.6% after (P = .14). The survey found that the primary motivators were extra funding, honor on their curriculum vitae, and public recognition. CONCLUSIONS: We found that our residents had significant improvements on the annual ITE after the introduction of positive incentives. This incentivization may be easily implemented by program directors in their respective medical residencies to increase examination performance.