RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 is a new contagious disease that has spread rapidly across the world. It is associated with high mortality in those who develop respiratory complications and require admission to intensive care. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a supportive therapy option for selected severely ill patients who deteriorate despite the best supportive care. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, extra demand led to staff reorganization; hence, cardiac surgery consultants joined the ECMO retrieval team. This article describes how we increased service provisions to adapt to the changes in activity and staffing. METHODS: The data were collected from 16 March 2020 to 8 May 2020. The patients were referred through a dedicated Web-based referral portal to cope with increasing demand. The retrieval team attended the referring hospital, reviewed the patients and made the final decision to proceed with ECMO. RESULTS: We reported 41 ECMO retrieval runs during this study period. Apart from staffing changes, other retrieval protocols were maintained. The preferred cannulation method for veno-venous ECMO was drainage via the femoral vein and return to the right internal jugular vein. There were no complications reported during cannulation or transport. CONCLUSIONS: Staff reorganization in a crisis is of paramount importance. For those with precise transferrable skills, experience can be gained quickly with appropriate supervision. Therefore, the team members were selected based on skill mix rather than on roles that are more traditional. We have demonstrated that an ECMO retrieval service can be reorganized swiftly and successfully to cope with the sudden increase in demand by spending cardiac surgeons services to supplement the anaesthetic-intensivist roles.
Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Cuidados Críticos/organização & administração , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Admissão e Escalonamento de Pessoal/organização & administração , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Cirurgiões/organização & administração , Adulto , Idoso , COVID-19 , Cardiologia/organização & administração , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Estado Terminal , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea/métodos , Feminino , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino UnidoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed either through full median sternotomy (FS) or upper mini-sternotomy (MS). The Mini-Stern trial aimed to establish whether MS leads to quicker postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stay after first-time isolated AVR. METHODS: This pragmatic, open-label, parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared MS with FS for first-time isolated AVR in 2 United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals. Primary endpoints were duration of postoperative hospital stay and the time to fitness for discharge from hospital after AVR, analyzed in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In this RCT, 222 patients were recruited and randomized (n = 118 in the MS group; n = 104 in the FS group). Compared with the FS group, the MS group had a longer hospital length of stay (mean, 9.5 days vs 8.6 days) and took longer to achieve fitness for discharge home (mean, 8.5 days vs 7.5 days). Adjusting for valve type, sex, and surgeon, hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox models did not show a statistically significant effect of MS (relative to FS) on either hospital stay (HR, 0.874; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.668-1.143; P = .3246) or time to fitness for discharge (HR, 0.907; 95% CI, 0.688-1.197; P value = .4914). During a mean follow-up of 760 days (745 days for the MS group and 777 days for the FS group), 12 patients (10%) in the MS group and 7 patients (7%) in the FS group died (HR, 1.871; 95% CI, 0.723-4.844; P = .1966). Average extra cost for MS was £1714 during the first 12 months after AVR. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with FS for AVR, MS did not result in shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, or improved survival and was not cost-effective. The MS approach is not superior to FS for performing AVR.