Percutaneous Tracheostomy in COVID-19 Critically Ill Patients: Experience from 30 Consecutive Procedures

Abstract Introduction Percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a well-established practice that shows a reduced risk of wound infection compared with surgical tracheostomy, thus facilitating mechanical ventilation, nursing procedures, reduction in sedation and early mobilization. Objective This is an observational case-control study that compares the results of PT in ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prospectively enrolled to a similar group of subjects, retrospectively recruited, without COVID-19. Methods Ninety-eight consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU at Pisa Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana between March 11th and May 20th, 2020 were prospectively studied. Thirty of them underwent PT using different techniques. Another 30 non-COVID-19 ICU patients were used as a control-group. The main outcome was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of PT in COVID-19 patients. We measured the rate of complications. Results Percutaneous tracheostomy was performed with different techniques in 30 of the 98 COVID-19 ICU patients admitted to the ICU. Tracheostomy was performed on day 10 (mean 10 ± 3.3) from the time of intubation. Major tracheal complications occurred in 5 patients during the procedure. In the control group of 30 ICU patients, no differences were found with regards to the timing of the tracheostomy, whereas a statistically significant difference was observed regarding complications with only one tracheal ring rupture reported. Conclusion Percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients showed a higher rate of complications compared with controls even though the same precautions and the same expertise were applied. Larger studies are needed to understand whether the coronavirus disease itself carries an increased risk of tracheal damage.

A survey on the use of intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiac surgery.

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is an established tool in the management of cardiac dysfunction in cardiac surgery. The best timing for IABP weaning is unknown and varies greatly among cardiac centers. The authors investigated the differences in IABP management among 66 cardiac surgery centers performing 40,675 cardiac surgery procedures in the 12-month study period. The centers were contacted through email, telephone, or in person interview. IABP management was very heterogeneous in this survey: In 43% centers it was routinely removed on the first postoperative day, and in 34% on the second postoperative day. In 50% centers, it was routinely removed after extubation of the patients whereas in 15% centers it was removed while the patients were sedated and mechanically ventilated. In 66% centers, patients were routinely receiving pharmacological inotropic support at the time of removal of IABP. The practice of decreasing IABP support was also heterogeneous: 57% centers weaned by reducing the ratio of beat assistance whereas 34% centers weaned by reducing balloon volume. We conclude that the management of IABP is heterogeneous and there is a need for large prospective studies on the management of IABP in cardiac surgery.

Validation of a decision-making strategy for systolic anterior motion following mitral valve repair.

Low cardiac output syndrome and hypotension are dreadful consequences of systolic anterior motion (SAM) after a mitral valve (MV) repair. The management of SAM in the operating room remains controversial. We validate a recently suggested two-step management method and classification of this complication. This was a teaching hospital-based observational study. We validated a novel two-step conservative management method, consisting in intravascular volume expansion and discontinuation of inotropic drugs (step 1), and increasing the afterload by ascending aorta manual compression while administering esmolol e.v. (step 2). We also validate a novel classification of SAM: easy-to-revert (responding to step 1), difficult-to-revert (responding to step 2), or persistent. Fifty patients had an easy-to-revert while 26 had a difficult-to-revert SAM; 4 patients had a persistent condition (promptly diagnosed through our decisional algorithm) and underwent an immediate second pump run to repeat the mitral repair surgery. We confirmed that SAM after a repair of a degenerative MV is common and validated a simple two-step conservative management method that allows to clearly identify those few patients who require immediate surgical revision.

Remifentanil in critically ill cardiac patients.

Remifentanil has a unique pharmacokinetic profile, with a rapid onset and offset of action and a plasmatic metabolism. Its use can be recommended even in patients with renal impairment, hepatic dysfunction or poor cardiovascular function. A potential protective cardiac preconditioning effect has been suggested. Drug-related adverse effects seem to be comparable with other opioids. In cardiac surgery, many randomized controlled trials demonstrated that the potential benefits of the use of remifentanil not only include a profound protection against intraoperative stressful stimuli, but also rapid postoperative recovery, early weaning from mechanical ventilation, and extubation. Remifentanil shows ideal properties of sedative agents being often employed for minimally invasive cardiologic techniques, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation and radio frequency treatment of atrial flutter, or diagnostic procedures such as transesophageal echocardiography. In intensive care units remifentanil is associated with a reduction in the time to tracheal extubation after cessation of the continuous infusion; other advantages could be more evident in patients with organ dysfunction. Effective and safe analgesia can be provided in case of short and painful procedures (i.e. chest drain removal). In conclusion, thanks to its peculiar properties, remifentanil will probably play a major role in critically ill cardiac patients.