RESUMEN
Introduction: The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has affected Italy since the beginning of 2020. Endotracheal intubation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and tracheostomy are frequently required in patients with severe COVID-19. Tracheal stenosis is a potentially severe condition that can occur as a complication after intubation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility and safety of endoscopic and surgical techniques in the treatment of tracheal stenosis related to COVID-19. Materials and Methods: Between June 2020 and May 2022, consecutive patients with tracheal stenosis who were admitted to our surgical department were considered eligible for participation in the study. Results: A total of 13 patients were included in the study. They consisted of nine women (69%) and four men (31%) with a median age of 57.2 years. We included seven patients with post-tracheostomy tracheal stenosis. Bronchoscopy was performed to identify the type, location, and severity of the stenosis. All patients underwent bronchoscopic dilation and surveillance bronchoscopy at 7 and 30 days after the procedure. We repeated endoscopic treatment in eight patients. Three patients underwent tracheal resection anastomosis. Final follow-up bronchoscopy demonstrated no residual stenosis. Conclusions: The incidence of and risk factors associated with tracheal stenosis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are currently unknown. Our experience confirms the efficacy and safety of endoscopic management followed by surgical procedures in cases of relapsed tracheal stenosis.
RESUMEN
Background: Targeted medical therapy and balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) entered the field of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) treatment in the early 2010's. Multimodal therapy is emerging as the new gold standard for CTEPH management. Whether this change of paradigm impacted early outcomes of pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) remains unknown. Our aim is to report our surgical experience in the era of CTEPH multimodal management. Methods: Patients who underwent PEA between 2016 and 2020 were included in the study. Early outcomes were described and compared between three groups of patients: PEA alone, PEA after targeted medical therapy induction and PEA after BPA. Results: A total of 418 patients, 225 males and 193 females, with a mean age of 59±14 years were included in the study. 336 patients underwent PEA alone, 69 after medical targeted therapy induction and 13 after unilateral BPA. Baseline preoperative pulmonary vascular resistance [4.99 (IQR, 1.71-8.48), 6.21 (IQR, 4.37-8.1), 5.03 (IQR, 4.44-7.19) wood units (WU), P=0.230, respectively] and PEA effectiveness [% decrease mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP), 24 (IQR, 7-42), 25 (IQR, 7-35), 23 (IQR, 3-29), P=0.580] did not differ between groups. Compared to PEA alone and PEA+BPA, the medical therapy induction group represented the most challenging group with higher baseline mPAP (45±10 vs. 42±11 and 43±11 mmHg, P=0.047), longer circulatory arrest time (30.1±15 vs. 26.6±10 and 19.6±6 min, P=0.005), higher post-PEA extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use (20.6% vs. 8.7 and 9.1%, P=0.004), higher duration on mechanical ventilation [4 (IQR, 1-12) vs. 1 (IQR, 0.5-5) and 2 (IQR, 1-3) days, P=0.005], higher complication rate (85.5% vs. 74.6% and 76.9%, P=0.052) and higher 90-day mortality (13% vs. 3.9% and 0%, P=0.002). Compared to PEA and PEA+ medical therapy induction groups, patients in the BPA induction group were older [72 (IQR, 62-76) vs. 60 (IQR, 48-69) and 62 (IQR, 52-72) years, P=0.005], and underwent shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (191.9±47.9 vs. 222±107.2 and 236.8±46.4 min, P<0.001), aortic cross clamping (54.8±21 vs. 82.7±31.4 and 80.1±32.9 min, P=0.002) and circulatory arrest time (19.6±6.2 vs. 26.6±10.8 and 30.1±15.1 min, P=0.008). Conclusions: Multimodal therapy approach to CTEPH patients did not affect effectiveness of PEA. Medical therapy and BPA could act in synergy with surgery to treat more challenging patients.
RESUMEN
: Necrotizing eosinophilic myocarditis (NEM) is a life-threatening condition that needs rapid diagnosis by endomyocardial biopsy and hemodynamic support usually by mechanical circulatory systems. We present the case of a 25-year-old Caucasian man who developed a refractory cardiogenic shock due to a NEM that was supported with a peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation associated with intravenous steroids and recovered after 2 weeks. Further instrumental investigations lead to the final diagnosis of NEM as first presentation of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (formerly Churg-Strauss syndrome), remarking the importance of identifying the systemic disorder that usually triggers the eosinophilic damage of the myocardium.