Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Chest ; 161(1): 121-129, 2022 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34147502

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health care systems during viral epidemics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had undergone tracheostomy in 15 Spanish ICUs during the surge, when ICU occupancy modified clinician criteria to perform tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19. We compared ventilator-free days at 28 and 60 days and ICU- and hospital bed-free days at 28 and 60 days in propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent tracheostomy at different timings (≤ 7 days, 8-10 days, and 11-14 days after intubation). RESULTS: Of 1,939 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia, 682 (35.2%) underwent tracheostomy, 382 (56%) within 14 days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with more ventilator-free days at 28 days (≤ 7 days vs > 7 days [116 patients included in the analysis]: median, 9 days [interquartile range (IQR), 0-15 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 0-7 days]; difference between groups, 4.5 days; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7 days; 8-10 days vs > 10 days [222 patients analyzed]: 6 days [IQR, 0-10 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-6 days]; difference, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 1.7-4.5 days; 11-14 days vs > 14 days [318 patients analyzed]: 4 days [IQR, 0-9 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-2 days]; difference, 3 days; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 days). Except hospital bed-free days at 28 days, all other end points were better with early tracheostomy. INTERPRETATION: Optimal timing of tracheostomy may improve patient outcomes and may alleviate ICU capacity strain during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing mortality. Tracheostomy within the first work on a ventilator in particular may improve ICU availability.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Respiración Artificial , Traqueostomía , Anciano , Ocupación de Camas/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Neumonía Viral/virología , Puntaje de Propensión , Estudios Retrospectivos , España/epidemiología
2.
Ann Intensive Care ; 7(1): 47, 2017 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28466461

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Extubation failure is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, but cannot be safely predicted or avoided. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) prevents postextubation respiratory failure in low-risk patients. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that HFNC reduces postextubation respiratory failure in high-risk non-hypercapnic patients compared with conventional oxygen. METHODS: Randomized, controlled multicenter trial in patients who passed a spontaneous breathing trial. We enrolled patients meeting criteria for high-risk of failure to randomly receive HFNC or conventional oxygen for 24 h after extubation. Primary outcome was respiratory failure within 72-h postextubation. Secondary outcomes were reintubation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, and mortality. Statistical analysis included multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: The study was stopped due to low recruitment after 155 patients were enrolled (78 received high-flow and 77 received conventional oxygen). Groups were similar at enrollment, and all patients tolerated 24-h HFNC. Postextubation respiratory failure developed in 16 (20%) HFNC patients and in 21 (27%) conventional patients [OR 0.69 (0.31-1.54), p = 0.2]. Reintubation was needed in 9 (11%) HFNC patients and in 12 (16%) conventional patients [OR 0.71 (0.25-1.95), p = 0.5]. No difference was found in ICU or hospital length of stay, or mortality. Logistic regression models suggested HFNC [OR 0.43 (0.18-0.99), p = 0.04] and cancer [OR 2.87 (1.04-7.91), p = 0.04] may be independently associated with postextubation respiratory failure. CONCLUSION: Our study is inconclusive as to a potential benefit of HFNC over conventional oxygen to prevent occurrence of respiratory failure in non-hypercapnic patients at high risk for extubation failure. Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01820507.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...