A Comparison of Intubation and Airway Complications Between COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Critically Ill Subjects.

Introduction The number of subjects infected with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) throughout the western hemisphere increased exponentially in the later months of 2020. With this increase in infection, the number of subjects requiring advanced ventilatory support increased concomitantly. We decided to compare the survival rates between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) subjects versus non-COVID-19 subjects undergoing intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We hypothesized that COVID-19 subjects would have lower rates of survival post-intubation. Methods We screened all subjects admitted to the adult critical care unit between January 2020 and June 2020 to determine if they met the inclusion criteria. These subjects were required to be spontaneously ventilating upon admission and eventually required intubation. Subjects were selected from our electronic health record (EHR) system EPIC© (Epic Systems, Verona, WI) through a retrospective ICU admission analysis. We identified and included 267 non-COVID-19 subjects and 56 COVID-19 subjects. Our primary outcome of interest was intubation-related mortality. We defined intubation mortality as unexpected death (within 48 hours of intubation). Our secondary outcomes were the length of stay in the ICU, length of time requiring ventilator support, and proportion of subjects requiring tracheostomy placement. Results Compared to non-coronavirus disease (COVID) subjects, COVID subjects were more likely to be intubated for acute respiratory distress. COVID subjects had longer stays in the ICU and longer ventilator duration than non-COVID subjects. COVID-positive subjects had a decreased hazard ratio for mortality (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.87, P < 0.05) and increased chances of survival compared to non-COVID subjects. Conclusions We showed the rates of intubation survival were no different between the COVID and non-COVID groups. We attribute this finding to intubation preparation, a multidisciplinary team approach, and having the most experienced provider lead the intubation process.

Intraoperative Renal Replacement Therapy: Practical Information for Anesthesiologists.

Previous publications regarding perioperative renal replacement therapy (RRT) have focused on the general care of the RRT-dependent patient and provided a broad overview of the various RRT modalities. The goal of this review article is to provide anesthesiologists with specific practical information regarding the possible intraoperative advantages and limitations of each modality, mandatory equipment to institute intraoperative therapy, and background knowledge necessary to communicate effectively with nephrologists and/or support staff regarding the intraoperative RRT goals.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights from 2019.

This article is the second in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series, namely the highlights of the year that pertain to electrophysiology in relation to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. This second article focuses on cardiac sympathetic denervation, the management of patients with atrial fibrillation, cerebral oximetry for catheter ablation procedures, advancements in leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator technology, and the emergence of pulsed field ablation for pulmonary vein isolation.

Intraoperative 3-Dimensional Echocardiography-Derived Right Ventricular Volumetric Analysis in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension Patients Before and After Pulmonary Thromboendarterectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the change in 3-dimensional (3D) echocardiography-derived right ventricular volumes before and after pulmonary thromboendarterectomy (PTE) and to evaluate the correlation of these variables with right heart catheterization-calculated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). SETTING: Single university hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective PTE surgery between November 2016 and February 2018. METHODS: All patients received a pulmonary artery catheter and arterial line, and transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring was performed. Transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring before surgery (pre-PTE) and postsurgery (post-PTE) included comprehensive 2D examinations and 3D right ventricular data set acquisition for offline volumetric analysis. Right ventricular fractional area of change (RVFAC) was measured from a right ventricular-focused midesophageal 4-chamber view. TomTec-Arena 4D RV-Function 2.0 offline software (TomTec Imaging Systems GmbH, Unterschlessheim, Germany) was used to measure right ventricular end diastolic volume (RVEDV), right ventricular end systolic volume (RVESV), and right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF). Paired t tests were used to evaluate for differences before and after surgery, and echocardiographic variables versus PVR were analyzed with linear regression. RESULTS: Forty patients were scheduled for elective PTE surgery; 35 patients had complete hemodynamic profiles and echocardiographic data sets and were included in the evaluation. Mean pulmonary artery pressure decreased from 40 ± 11 to 28 ± 7 mmHg, and PVR decreased from 708 ± 432 to 285 ± 136 dynes*s/cm5 after PTE. RVEDV decreased from 106 ± 43 to 79 ± 35 cm3 (p < 0.001), and RVESV decreased from 77 ± 36 to 59 ± 31 cm3 (p < 0.001). A statistically significant change was not identified in RVEF or RVFAC post-PTE compared with pre-PTE values. All volumetric analyses and RVFAC correlated poorly with PVR (pre-PTE RVEDV correlation to PVR [R2 = 0.004]; post-PTE RVEDV correlation to PVR [R2 = 0.024]). CONCLUSION: Even though RVEDV and RVESV displayed a statistically significant change after PTE, this study did not identify a correlation between those variables and PVR. In addition, markers of right ventricular systolic function (eg, RVFAC and RVEF) did not correlate with PVR. Therefore, the authors conclude that even though these echocardiographic measurements quantified a statistically significant change after PVR reduction, they cannot be reliably used as a surrogate marker of success immediately after PTE.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Placement Aided by Transesophageal Echocardiography versus Pressure Waveform Transduction.

OBJECTIVE: To compare pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) placement by transesophageal echocardiography combined with pressure waveform transduction versus the traditional technique of pressure waveform transduction alone. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized trial. SETTING: Single university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) scheduled for pulmonary thromboendarterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: PACs were placed in 48 patients with CTEPH scheduled for pulmonary thromboendarterectomy by either a combined approach (eg, transesophageal echocardiography [TEE] and pressure waveform transduction) or by pressure waveform transduction alone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Successful placement of the PAC via a combined technique or pressure waveform transduction alone was timed, number of attempts recorded, and final location noted. The final location of the pressure waveform-guided catheters was the proximal right pulmonary artery in 6 of 24 cases (25%), whereas the combined method resulted in successful placement in the proximal right pulmonary artery in 24 of 24 cases (100%). The pressure waveform technique resulted in a mean time to placement and mean number of attempts of 74 seconds and 1.70 attempts, respectively. The combined approach resulted in a mean time to placement and mean number of attempts of 89 seconds and 1.79 attempts, respectively. The combined method resulted in placement in the proximal right pulmonary artery significantly more often than the pressure-only method but did not reduce significantly the number of attempts or time required to place the catheter successfully. Additionally, among those cases that required more than 1 attempt or manipulation, there was no difference in the time to successful placement or the number of attempts required for successful placement. CONCLUSION: TEE guidance during PAC insertion was hypothesized to result in a higher success rate, precise placement, and shorter times to placement. One hundred percent of the PACs inserted with TEE guidance were positioned successfully in the proximal right pulmonary artery, which is the institutional preference. Although the combined technique resulted in greater precision, the clinical significance of this is unknown. The time to placement benefit was not confirmed by this study.

Hemodynamic Consequence of Hand Ventilation Versus Machine Ventilation During Transport After Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The hemodynamic consequences of ventilation of intubated patients during transport either by hand or using a transport ventilator have not been reported in patients after cardiac surgery. The authors hypothesized that bag-mask ventilation would alter end-tidal CO2 during transport and hemodynamic parameters in patients post-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized trial. SETTING: A university-affiliated tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Cardiac surgery patients. INTERVENTIONS: Thirty-six patients were randomized to hand ventilation or machine ventilation. Hemodynamic variables including blood pressure, heart rate, peripheral saturation of oxygen, and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) were measured in these patients prior to transport, every 2 minutes during transport and upon arrival in the intensive care unit (ICU). Pulmonary artery pressure (PA) pressures were measured at origin and at destination. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes were changes from baseline in end-tidal CO2, hemodynamic changes from baseline and pulmonary artery pressure changes from origin to destination. The average transport time between the 2 groups was not different: 5 minutes for patients ventilated by hand and 5.47 minutes for patients ventilated with a transport ventilator (p = 0.369 by 2-sided t-test). The difference in all measured changes in ETCO2 between hand-ventilated and machine-ventilated patients during transport was 2.74 mmHg (p = 0.013). The difference between operating room and ICU ETCO2 from each cohort was 1.31 mmHg (p = 0.067). The difference in PAmean measured at origin and destination was 0.783 mmHg (p = 0.622). All other hemodynamic variables were not different during transport. CONCLUSIONS: Hand ventilation during transport was associated with greater change from baseline of ETCO2 compared to machine ventilation during transport after cardiac surgery, but this did not translate into any difference in hemodynamic changes upon arrival in ICU. A hemodynamic benefit of machine transport ventilation to cardiac patients was not demonstrated.