Evaluation of Patients with COVID-19 Followed Up in Intensive Care Units in the Second Year of the Pandemic: A Multicenter Point Prevalence Study.

OBJECTIVE: A 1-day point prevalence study was planned to obtain country data by determining the clinical characteristics, follow-up and treatment methods of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases that required intensive care unit (ICU) treatment in the second year of the pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who were hospitalized in the ICUs due to COVID-19 between March 11, 2022, 08.00 am, and March 12, 2022, 08.00 am, were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, intensive care and laboratory data, radiological characteristics, and follow-up results of the patients were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 811 patients from 59 centers were included in the study, 59% of the cases were male, and the mean age was 74 ± 14 years. At least one comorbid disease was present in 94% of the cases, and hypertension was the most common. When ICU weight scores were examined, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II: 19 (15-27) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment: 7 (4-10) were seen. Sepsis was present in 37% (n = 298) of cases. PaO2/FiO2 ratios of the patients were 190 the highest and 150 the lowest and 51% of the cases were followed via invasive mechanical ventilation. On the study day, 73% bilateral involvement was seen on chest x-ray, and ground-glass opacities (52%) were the most common on chest tomography. There was growth in culture in 40% (n = 318) of the cases, and the most common growth was in the tracheal aspirate (42%). CONCLUSION: The clinical course of COVID-19 is variable, and ICU follow-up was required due to advanced age, comorbidity, presence of respiratory symptoms, and widespread radiological involvement. The need for respiratory support and the presence of secondary infection are important issues to be considered in the follow-up. Despite the end of the second year of the pandemic and vaccination, the high severity of the disease as well as the need for follow-up in ICUs has shown that COVID-19 is an important health problem.

First management of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 akin to the vital head and neck region and thyroid gland bed: trust, but be careful whom (you trust)?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A total of 48 patients who underwent percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy, with 24 COVID-19 patients (Group C) and 24 non-COVID-19 patients (Group N), were included in the study. Patients' demographic features including age and gender, time to intubation, duration of intubation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores, comorbidities, duration of opening tracheostomy, complications, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care units, and mortality were recorded and compared between the groups. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age and gender (p=0.558 and p=0.110, respectively). Time to intubation was significantly more prolonged, and intubation follow-up duration was significantly shorter in Group C compared to Group N (p=0.034 and p=0.002, respectively). The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score was statistically significantly higher in Group N compared with Group C (p=0.012). The most common comorbidity was hypertension in 29 (60.4%) patients, followed by cerebrovascular disease in 19 (39.6%) patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding mortality (p=0.212). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy can be performed safely in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. However, COVID-19 patients may have a longer time to intubation and shorter intubation follow-up duration than non-COVID-19 patients. The study also found a higher incidence of complications in COVID-19 patients undergoing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. These results emphasize the importance of careful patient selection, meticulous technique, and close postoperative monitoring in patients undergoing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy, particularly in those with COVID-19.

First management of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 akin to the vital head and neck region and thyroid gland bed: trust, but be careful whom (you trust)?

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A total of 48 patients who underwent percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy, with 24 COVID-19 patients (Group C) and 24 non-COVID-19 patients (Group N), were included in the study. Patients' demographic features including age and gender, time to intubation, duration of intubation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores, comorbidities, duration of opening tracheostomy, complications, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care units, and mortality were recorded and compared between the groups. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age and gender (p=0.558 and p=0.110, respectively). Time to intubation was significantly more prolonged, and intubation follow-up duration was significantly shorter in Group C compared to Group N (p=0.034 and p=0.002, respectively). The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score was statistically significantly higher in Group N compared with Group C (p=0.012). The most common comorbidity was hypertension in 29 (60.4%) patients, followed by cerebrovascular disease in 19 (39.6%) patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding mortality (p=0.212). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy can be performed safely in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. However, COVID-19 patients may have a longer time to intubation and shorter intubation follow-up duration than non-COVID-19 patients. The study also found a higher incidence of complications in COVID-19 patients undergoing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. These results emphasize the importance of careful patient selection, meticulous technique, and close postoperative monitoring in patients undergoing percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy, particularly in those with COVID-19.

Awake hand surgery under ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block is possible for cooperative children.

In recent years, brachial plexus anesthesia techniques for upper limb surgery have been used more and more commonly on children; however, the patient is typically under deep sedation or general anesthesia. For eligible, cooperative children, surgery can also be performed using regional blocks while the patient is awake. We present 5 cases in which Ultrasound (US)-guided infraclavicular brachial plexus blocks (ICB) were used on children for hand or forearm surgery. Surgical anesthesia was achieved in all patients and surgery was completed uneventfully using brachial plexus anesthesia, without need for deep sedation.

Assessment of Some Public Hospitals in Turkey Regarding Anaesthetist, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Equipment.

OBJECTIVE: Every year, 230 million patients undergo major general surgery with anaesthesia worldwide, and 7 million resulted with major complications. Monitorisation and equipment has a great role in increasing patient safety and safe surgery during anaesthesia. METHODS: Turkey is divided into 12 Eurostut-NUTS regions and 26 subregions statistically. Totally, 303 hospitals that are included in these regions were enrolled in this descriptive trial. The hospitals were contacted by telephone between October 2012 and August 2013. Data collecting forms were e-mailed to any of the anaesthetists or anaesthesia technicians of the hospital and they were requested to fill the forms and forward them to one of the investigators. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 221 of 303 hospitals (73%). Twenty-three hospitals were tertiary (university and education and research), 21 were city and 177 were county hospitals. No anaesthetist, operating rooms or intensive care units were available in 114 of the county hospitals. Anaesthetists were responsible for 61% of these active working theatres. Electrocardiogram, heart rate, non-invasive blood pressure and saturation could be monitored in 97% of them. End-tidal carbon dioxide could be monitored in 91% of at least one operating room in these hospitals. However, if the subject became to end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring in every room, this ratio decreased to 63%. Defibrillators were absent in 6% of these rooms. Adult intensive care units were available in 33% of the hospitals and paediatric intensive care units were available in 32.4%; the responsibility of these intensive care units were carried out by anaesthetists at a 91.4% ratio. End-tidal carbon dioxide could be monitored in 54% of these units; invasive monitorisation could be applied in 68.4% if needed. CONCLUSION: It was observed that hospitals have different standards according to their infrastructures of anaesthesia and intensive care unit equipment. We think that the elimination of these differences is an important step with respect to increasing patient safety and enhancement of the service quality in hospitals.