Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress: treated cases versus propensity-matched controls.

Objective: Given the high mortality and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation of COVID-19 patients, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen for COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress. Methods: This is a single-center clinical trial of COVID-19 patients at NYU Winthrop Hospital from March 31 to April 28, 2020. Patients in this trial received hyperbaric oxygen therapy at 2.0 atmospheres of pressure in monoplace hyperbaric chambers for 90 minutes daily for a maximum of five total treatments. Controls were identified using propensity score matching among COVID-19 patients admitted during the same time period. Using competing-risks survival regression, we analyzed our primary outcome of inpatient mortality and secondary outcome of mechanical ventilation. Results: We treated 20 COVID-19 patients with hyperbaric oxygen. Ages ranged from 30 to 79 years with an oxygen requirement ranging from 2 to 15 liters on hospital days 0 to 14. Of these 20 patients, two (10%) were intubated and died, and none remain hospitalized. Among 60 propensity-matched controls based on age, sex, body mass index, coronary artery disease, troponin, D-dimer, hospital day, and oxygen requirement, 18 (30%) were intubated, 13 (22%) have died, and three (5%) remain hospitalized (with one still requiring mechanical ventilation). Assuming no further deaths among controls, we estimate that the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratios were 0.37 for inpatient mortality (p=0.14) and 0.26 for mechanical ventilation (p=0.046). Conclusion: Though limited by its study design, our results demonstrate the safety of hyperbaric oxygen among COVID-19 patients and strongly suggests the need for a well-designed, multicenter randomized control trial.

The Ethical Implications of the Reclassification of Noninvasive Follicular Variant Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have highlighted the lack of consensus in the diagnosis of follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (FVPTC). An international multidisciplinary panel to address the controversy was assembled at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Pathology Society in March of 2015, leading to the recent publication reclassifying encapsulated (or noninvasive) FVPTC (EFVPTC) as a benign neoplasm. Does this change in histologic taxonomy warrant a change in clinical practice, and how should it affect those who have been given this diagnosis in the past? We consider the financial and psychological impact of this reclassification and discuss the ethical, legal, and practical issues involved with sharing this information with the patients who are affected. SUMMARY: The total direct and indirect cost of thyroid cancer surveillance in patients is significant. High levels of clinically relevant distress affect up to 43% of patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma, as estimated by the Distress Thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for detecting distress in cancer patients. Although there are currently no legal opinions that establish a precedent for recontacting patients whose clinical status is altered by a change in nomenclature, the prudent course would be to attend to the requirements of medical ethics. CONCLUSION: Informing patients with a previous diagnosis of EFVPTC that the disease has been reclassified as benign is expected to have a dramatic effect on their surveillance needs and to alleviate the psychological impact of living with a diagnosis of cancer. It is important to re-evaluate the pathologic slides of those patients at risk to ensure that the invasive nature of the tumor is comprehensively evaluated before notifying a patient of a change in diagnosis. The availability of the entire tumor for evaluation of the capsule may prove to be a challenge for a portion of the population at risk. We believe that it is the clinician's professional duty to make a sincere and reasonable effort to convey the information to the affected patients. We also believe that the cost savings with respect to the need for additional surgery, radioactive iodine, and rigorous surveillance associated with a misinterpretation of the biology of the diagnosis of EFVPTC in less experienced hands will likely more than offset the cost incurred in histologic review and patient notification.