Efficient treatment of esophageal nutrition bezoars: dissolution outmatches removal-the Zurich approach.

Enteral feed bezoars are difficult to treat and can lead to serious adverse events. There is no standardized treatment approach and various strategies have been suggested. We herein describe three cases of successful dissolutions of feed bezoars consisting of Promote® Fibre Plus with sodium bicarbonate 8.4% in critically ill patients. To provide the rationale for this approach, the effect of sodium bicarbonate 8.4% on enteral feed concretions was studied in vitro. First, Promote® Fibres Plus was incubated with hydrochloric acid with gradually decreasing pH values to establish a pH at which the solution solidifies. The resulting enteral feed concretion was exposed to sodium bicarbonate 8.4% and Coca Cola®. All patients were successfully treated with sodium bicarbonate 8.4% without the need of lengthy or repeat endoscopies. In vitro, Promote® Fibres Plus solidifies when acidified below a pH of 4.6. The resulting enteral feed concretions dissolved when exposed to sodium bicarbonate 8.4%. Incubation with Coca Cola® had no effect. We provide evidence that enteral feed bezoars consisting of Promote® Fibres Plus can be efficiently and safely treated with sodium bicarbonate 8.4% offering a new approach for daily patient care.

Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes. METHOD: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min. RESULTS: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.