Management of critical tracheal stenosis with a straw sized tube (Tritube): Case report.

Imminent upper airway obstruction due to life-threatening tracheal stenosis of any cause is a challenging situation. We present a challenging case of total thyroidectomy for a malignant, invasive, and highly vascularized thyroid carcinoma that has invaded the surrounding tissues, including the sternum and mediastinum, resulting in compression of the trachea with indentation. The patient presented with a significant symptomatic tracheal stenosis, the narrowest area of that was 4 mm. Airway management in such cases presents a particular challenge to the anesthesiologists, especially considering that the option of tracheostomy is very difficult most of the time due to the highly swollen thyroid and distorted anatomy. A meticulous history of the patient's illness had been taken, and a comprehensive preoperative evaluation was conducted, including construction of a 3D model airway, virtual endoscopy, and transnasal tracheoscopy. On the day of the surgery, the airway was managed through spontaneous respiration using intravenous anesthesia and the high-flow nasal oxygen (STRIVE-Hi) technique. It was then secured with intubation using a straw endotracheal tube (Tritube®) with an internal diameter (ID) of 2.4 mm and an outer diameter of 4.4 mm with the help of a fiberscope and D-MAC blade of a video laryngoscope. At the end of the procedure, the airway was checked with a fiber optic scope, which showed an improvement in the narrowed area. This enabled us to replace the Tritube with an adult cuffed ETT of size 6.5 mm ID, and the patient was transferred intubated to the surgical ICU. Two days later, the patient's tracheal diameter was evaluated with the help of a fiberoptic scope and extubated successfully in the operating theater.

Impact of outpatient palliative care (PC) on symptom burden in patients with advanced cancer at a tertiary cancer center in Jordan.

PURPOSE: Outpatient palliative care clinics are essential for early symptom management in patients with advanced cancer. Few outpatient programs are available in the Middle East. In this prospective study, we examined the symptom changes among cancer patients seen at a palliative care clinic in Jordan. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer who had an outpatient palliative care consultation and not delirious were enrolled. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) were collected at consultation and follow up visit 14-34 days later. We compared symptom changes using paired t test. RESULTS: Among the 182 enrolled patients, the average age was 53 years, 47 % were females, and 95 % had stage IV cancer. The median duration between the two clinic visits was 21 days (interquartile range 15-28). KPS decreased between visits (mean 68 vs. 66 %, P = 0.004). ESAS pain (5.9 vs. 5.1, P = 0.004) and sleep (4.6 vs. 4.1, P = 0.007) improved significantly over time. The remaining ESAS symptoms decreased in intensity, albeit not statistically significant. Among patients who presented with moderate to severe symptom intensity, pain (7 vs. 6, P < 0.0001), fatigue (7 vs. 6, P = 0.003), nausea (7 vs. 4, P < 0.0001), depression (7 vs. 5, P = 0.0008), anxiety (7 vs. 5, P < 0.0001), drowsiness (6 vs. 5, P < 0.001), appetite (7 vs. 6, P = 0.0007), well-being (7 vs. 6, P < 0.0001), dyspnea (6 vs. 5, P = 0.0006), and sleep (7 vs. 5, P < 0.0001) all improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Our outpatient palliative care consultation was associated with improvement in ESAS, particularly for patients who presented with moderate to severe symptoms. Further studies are needed to examine predictors of symptom response, longer term outcomes, and how to improve access to outpatient palliative care in the Middle East.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Physical, Emotional, and Total Symptom Distress Scores of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System.

CONTEXT: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is one of the most commonly used symptom batteries in clinical practice and research. OBJECTIVES: We used the anchor-based approach to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for improvement and deterioration for ESAS physical, emotional, and total symptom distress scores. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study, we asked patients with advanced cancer to complete their ESAS at the first clinic visit and at a second visit three weeks later. The anchor for MCID determination was Patient's Global Impression regarding their physical, emotional, and overall symptom burden ("better," "about the same," or "worse"). We identified the optimal sensitivity/specificity cutoffs for both improvement and deterioration for the three ESAS scores and also determined the within-patient changes. RESULTS: A total of 796 patients were enrolled from six centers. The ESAS scores had moderate responsiveness, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between 0.69 and 0.76. Using the sensitivity-specificity approach, the optimal cutoffs for ESAS physical, emotional, and total symptom distress scores were ≥3/60, ≥2/20, and ≥3/90 for improvement, and ≤-4/60, ≤-1/20, and ≤-4/90 for deterioration, respectively. These cutoffs had moderate sensitivities (59%-68%) and specificities (62%-80%). The within-patient change approach revealed the MCID cutoffs for improvement/deterioration to be 3/-4.3 for the physical score, 2.4/-1.8 for the emotional score, and 5.7/-2.9 for the total symptom distress score. CONCLUSION: We identified the MCIDs for physical, emotional, and total symptom distress scores, which have implications for interpretation of symptom response in clinical trials.