ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pulmonary embolism is the third most frequent type of cardiovascular disease behind coronary artery disease and stroke. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism have significant variability in short-term mortality from less than 0.6% in low-risk patients to 19% in high-risk patients. Risk stratification plays an important role in the management of acute pulmonary embolism as it can determine the need for urgent reperfusion therapies versus conservative strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: The three fundamental steps of risk stratification include the immediate identification of patients that are at high risk for mortality, the identification of patients that are at an increased risk of complications from pulmonary embolism that requires hospital monitoring and potential escalation of therapies, and the identification of patients at a low risk that can be treated as an outpatient. SUMMARY: It is vital to immediately identify high-risk patients for mortality so that they can be evaluated for urgent reperfusion therapies to improve outcomes. Risk stratification for intermediate-risk patients is based on right ventricular dysfunction in patients with hemodynamic stability. RV dysfunction can be assessed by clinical signs and symptoms along with ECHO and cardiac biomarkers. Identifying the low-risk population can help reduce the healthcare burden by allowing for early discharge and outpatient management.
Subject(s)
Pulmonary Embolism , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right , Humans , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Pulmonary Embolism/therapy , Pulmonary Embolism/drug therapy , Acute DiseaseABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIM: We investigated the association of noninvasive oxygenation support [high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and BiPAP], timing of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and inpatient mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective chart review study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (ICD-10 code U07.1) and received IMV from March 2020-October 2021. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was calculated; Obesity defined as body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2; morbid obesity was BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. Clinical parameters/vital signs recorded at time of admission. RESULTS: 709 COVID-19 patients underwent IMV, predominantly admitted from March-May 2020 (45%), average age 62±15 years, 67% male, 37% Hispanic, and 9% from group living settings. 44% had obesity, 11% had morbid obesity, 55% had type II diabetes, 75% had hypertension, and average CCI was 3.65 (SD = 3.11). Crude mortality rate was 56%. Close linear association of age with inpatient-mortality risk was found [OR (95% CI) = 1.35 (1.27-1.44) per 5 years, p<0.0001)]. Patients who died after IMV received noninvasive oxygenation support significantly longer: 5.3 (8.0) vs. 2.7 (SD 4.6) days; longer use was also independently associated with a higher risk of inpatient-mortality: OR = 3.1 (1.8-5.4) for 3-7 days, 7.2 (3.8-13.7) for ≥8 days (reference: 1-2 days) (p<0.0001). The association magnitude varied between age groups: 3-7 days duration (ref: 1-2 days), OR = 4.8 (1.9-12.1) in ≥65 years old vs. 2.1 (1.0-4.6) in <65 years old. Higher mortality risk was associated with higher CCI in patients ≥65 (P = 0.0082); among younger patients, obesity (OR = 1.8 (1.0-3.2) or morbid obesity (OR = 2.8;1.4-5.9) (p<0.05) were associated. No mortality association was found for sex or race. CONCLUSION: Time spent on noninvasive oxygenation support [as defined by high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and BiPAP] prior to IMV increased mortality risk. Research for the generalizability of our findings to other respiratory failure patient populations is needed.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Obesity, Morbid , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Aged , Infant, Newborn , Child, Preschool , Female , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Cannula , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation TherapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 is uncertain. We sought to evaluate outcomes of delayed intubation and examine the ROX index (ie, [[Formula: see text]]/breathing frequency) to predict weaning from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of subjects with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and managed with HFNC. The ROX index was applied to predict HFNC success. Subjects that failed HFNC were divided into early HFNC failure (≤ 48 h of HFNC therapy prior to mechanical ventilation) and late failure (> 48 h). Standard statistical comparisons and regression analyses were used to compare overall hospital mortality and secondary end points, including time-specific mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and ICU length of stay between early and late failure groups. RESULTS: 272 subjects with COVID-19 were managed with HFNC. One hundred sixty-four (60.3%) were successfully weaned from HFNC, and 111 (67.7%) of those weaned were managed solely in non-ICU settings. ROX index >3.0 at 2, 6, and 12 hours after initiation of HFNC was 85.3% sensitive for identifying subsequent HFNC success. One hundred eight subjects were intubated for failure of HFNC (61 early failures and 47 late failures). Mortality after HFNC failure was high (45.4%). There was no statistical difference in hospital mortality (39.3% vs 53.2%, P = .18) or any of the secondary end points between early and late HFNC failure groups. This remained true even when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review, HFNC was a viable strategy and mechanical ventilation was unecessary in the majority of subjects. In the minority that progressed to mechanical ventilation, duration of HFNC did not differentiate subjects with worse clinical outcomes. The ROX index was sensitive for the identification of subjects successfully weaned from HFNC. Prospective studies in COVID-19 are warranted to confirm these findings and to optimize patient selection for use of HFNC in this disease.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Cannula , Humans , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The outcomes of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 remain poorly defined. We sought to determine clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 managed with invasive mechanical ventilation in an appropriately resourced US health care system. METHODS: Outcomes of COVID-19 infected patients requiring mechanical ventilation treated within the Inova Health System between March 5, 2020 and April 26, 2020 were evaluated through an electronic medical record review. RESULTS: 1023 COVID-19 positive patients were admitted to the Inova Health System during the study period. Of these, 164 (16.0%) were managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed to definitive disposition. 70/164 patients (42.7%) had died and 94/164 (57.3%) were still alive. Deceased patients were older (median age of 66 vs. 55, p <0.0001) and had a higher initial d-dimer (2.22 vs. 1.31, p = 0.005) and peak ferritin levels (2998 vs. 2077, p = 0.016) compared to survivors. 84.3% of patients over 70 years old died in the hospital. Conversely, 67.4% of patients age 70 or younger survived to hospital discharge. Younger age, non-Caucasian race and treatment at a tertiary care center were all associated with survivor status. CONCLUSION: Mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is high, with particularly daunting mortality seen in patients of advanced age, even in a well-resourced health care system. A substantial proportion of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were not of advanced age, and this group had a reasonable chance for recovery.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care/standards , Female , Ferritins/blood , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Retrospective Studies , Virginia/epidemiology , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The utilization of imaging procedures is under scrutiny due to high costs and radiation exposure to patients and staff associated with some radiologic procedures. Within our institution's intensive care unit (ICU), it is common for patients to undergo chest radiography (CR) not only immediately following tracheostomy tube placement but also on a daily basis, irrespective of the patient's clinical status. We hypothesize that the clinical utility of performing routine daily CR on patients with tracheostomy tubes is low and leads to unnecessary financial cost. METHODS: A retrospective medical chart review was done on 761 CRs performed on 79 ICU patients with tracheostomy from April 2010 to July 2011. We searched the radiology reports of the 761 CRs for the presence of new radiographically detected complications and reviewed medical records to determine which complications were clinically suspected and which radiology reports led to changes in patient management. RESULTS: Of the 761 CRs, only 18 (2.3%) radiographs revealed new complications. All complications were clinically suspected prior to imaging. Only 5 (0.7%) complications resulted in a management change. The most common management changes were a change in antibiotic regimen (0.3%) and ordering of diuretics (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Routine daily imaging of patients with tracheostomy in an ICU provides little clinical utility, and CR in this population should be performed selectively based on the patient's clinical status.