Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 9.735
Filtrar
7.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(42): e22577, 2020 Oct 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33080692

RESUMO

RATIONALE: The new coronavirus pneumonia Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. Patients with critically COVID-19 usually require invasive respiratory support, and the airway management is particularly important and the prognosis is poor. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 64-year-old man with an anastomotic fistula after radical treatment of esophageal cancer and right-side encapsulated pyopneumothorax was admitted with cough and dyspnea. DIAGNOSIS: The patient was diagnosed with novel coronavirus pneumonia and right-side encapsulated pyopneumothorax by pharyngeal swab nucleic acid test in combination with chest computed tomography (CT). INTERVENTIONS: The patient was treated with antibiotics, antiviral and antibacterial medications, respiratory support, expectorant nebulization, and nutritional support. But he expressed progressive deterioration. Endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation were performed since the onset of the type - respiratory failure on the 13th day of admission. The patient had persistent refractory hypercapnia after mechanical ventilation. Based on the treatment mentioned above, combined with repeated bronchoalveolar lavage by using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) inhalation solution, the patients refractory hypercapnia was gradually improved. OUTCOMES: The patient was cured and discharged after being given the mechanical ventilation for 26 days as well as 46 days of hospitalization, currently is surviving well. LESSONS: Patients with severe conditions of novel coronavirus pneumonia often encounter bacterial infection in their later illness-stages. They may suffer respiratory failure and refractory hypercapnia that is difficult to improve due to excessive mucus secretion leading to small airway obstruction. This study provided a new insight on the proper treatment severe COVID-19 patients. The use of reasonable antibiotics and symptomatic respiratory support and other treatment, timely artificial airway and repeated bronchoalveolar NAC inhalation solution lavage, expectorant and other airway management are essential for such patients.


Assuntos
Acetilcisteína/uso terapêutico , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Lavagem Broncoalveolar/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Acetilcisteína/administração & dosagem , Administração por Inalação , Anastomose Cirúrgica , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Pneumotórax/complicações , Respiração Artificial
9.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 20(1): 262, 2020 10 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33050885

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) brings anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians to the mainstay of clinical workload and healthcare managements' focus. There are approximately 900 anesthesiologists in Israel, working in non-private hospitals. This nationwide cross-sectional study evaluated the readiness and involvement of anesthesia departments in Israel in management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact on anesthesiologists' health, workload, and clinical practices were also evaluated. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed to all of anesthesia department chairs in Israel on April 14th. Each response was identifiable on the hospital level only. Informed consent was waived since no patient data were collected. RESULTS: Response rate was 100%. A decrease of at least 40% in operating-room activity was reported by two-thirds of the departments. Anesthesiologists are leading the treatment of COVID-19 patients in 19/28 (68%) Israeli hospitals. Israel Society of Anesthesiologists' recommendations regarding intubation of COVID-19 patients were strictly followed (intubations performed by the most experienced available physician, by rapid-sequence induction utilizing video-laryngoscopy, while minimizing the number of people in the room - about 90% compliance for each). Anesthesiologists in most departments use standard personal protective equipment when caring for COVID-19 patients, including N95 masks, face shields, and water-proof gowns. Only one anesthesiologist across Israel was diagnosed with COVID-19 (unknown source of transmission). All department chairs reported emerging opportunities that advance the anesthesia profession: implementation of new technologies and improvement in caregivers' clinical capabilities (68% each), purchase of new equipment (96%), and increase in research activity (36%). CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide cross-sectional study had a complete response rate and therefore well-represents the anesthesia practice in Israel. We found that Israeli anesthesia departments are generally highly involved in the health system efforts to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesthesia and airway management are performed in a remarkably comparable manner and with proper protection of caregivers. Ambulatory anesthesia activity has dramatically decreased, but many departments find opportunities for improvement even in these challenging times.


Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Anestesia/organização & administração , Anestesiologistas/organização & administração , Anestesiologia/organização & administração , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Anestesia/métodos , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Israel/epidemiologia , Salas Cirúrgicas/organização & administração , Pandemias , Inquéritos e Questionários
10.
Anesth Analg ; 131(4): 1092-1101, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32925330

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The safety and adverse event rate of supraglottic airway (SGA) devices for cesarean delivery (CD) is poorly characterized. The primary aims of this review were to determine whether the first-pass success was higher and time to insertion for SGA was faster than endotracheal intubation for elective CD. The secondary aim was to determine the airway-related adverse event rate associated with SGA use compared to endotracheal intubation in elective CD under general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: Six databases were systematically searched until September 2019. Included studies reported on the use of SGA in comparison to endotracheal tube intubation. A comparative meta-analysis between SGA and endotracheal intubation was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Dichotomous outcomes were reported using an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The results for continuous outcomes were reported using a weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 2236 patients compared SGA and endotracheal intubation. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in first-attempt success rate (OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 0.85-4.32; I = 0%; P = .44). There was no clinically significant difference in time to insertion (WMD = -15.80 seconds; 95% CI, -25.30 to -6.31 seconds; I= 100%; P = .001). Similarly, there was no difference in any adverse event rate except sore throat which was reduced with the use of an SGA (OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08-0.32; I= 53%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the reasonable insertion success rate and safety profile of SGAs demonstrated in this meta-analysis, the analysis remains underpowered and therefore inconclusive. At present, further studies are required before the use of an SGA as the first-line airway for an elective CD can be recommended.


Assuntos
Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/instrumentação , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Cesárea/métodos , Intubação Intratraqueal/instrumentação , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Adulto , Equipamentos e Provisões/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Intubação Intratraqueal/efeitos adversos , Gravidez
11.
Anesth Analg ; 131(4): 1210-1216, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32925342

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The use of a shoulder roll to view the glottic opening during direct laryngoscopy in infants has been recommended but is not evidence based. METHODS: Twenty infants with normal airways, <6 months of age undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomized to undergo direct laryngoscopy first with a 2-inch vertical shoulder roll and then without, or vice versa. The primary outcome was the difference in the vertical distance between the angle of the laryngoscopist's eye and the operating room table in the 2 positions. Also, the views of the glottic opening in both positions were recorded for each infant and analyzed by a blinded investigator using the percent of glottic opening (POGO). RESULTS: Twenty infants completed the study without complications. The vertical distance did not differ significantly whether the shoulder roll was placed first or second, and there was no evidence of a differential carryover effect in the crossover design (P = .268). The main effect of the shoulder roll on the mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) vertical distances without 47.8 cm (43.5-52.1) and with the shoulder roll 37.2 cm (33.3-41) yielded a mean (95% CI) vertical difference of 10.6 cm (9.3-11.79; P = .0001). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) POGO scores without 100 [86.2, 100] and with the shoulder roll 97.5 [80, 100] did not differ (median difference [95% CI]: 0 [-20 to 0]; P = .39). CONCLUSIONS: A 2-inch shoulder roll lowers the line of sight of the glottic opening compared with no shoulder roll, without affecting the view of the glottic opening during laryngoscopy in infants.


Assuntos
Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Laringoscopia/métodos , Posicionamento do Paciente/métodos , Ombro , Anestesiologistas , Estudos Cross-Over , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/métodos , Feminino , Glote/anatomia & histologia , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Método Simples-Cego , Resultado do Tratamento
14.
Rev. esp. anestesiol. reanim ; 67(7): 367-373, ago.-sept. 2020. ilus, tab
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-192471

RESUMO

La pandemia del COVID-19 ha hecho estragos, no solo en el número de víctimas fatales sino también en la infraestructura de los hospitales y unidades de cuidados intensivos. El número limitado de respiradores es una preocupación de toda la comunidad dada la demanda masiva y a muy corto plazo de estos equipos. Esta presentación tiene como fin dar soluciones sencillas para ventilar pacientes intubados de modo mandatorio utilizando equipos de ventilación no invasiva. Las soluciones propuestas permiten 2 estrategias claras frente al COVID-19: Reemplazar las máquinas de anestesia para disponer de ellas en pacientes. Usar la opción de equipos de ventilación no invasiva para pacientes con COVID-19 a modo de «puente» y a la espera de la liberación de un respirador específico en la unidad de cuidados críticos


COVID-19 pandemic caused not only many deaths around the world but also made evident technical limitations of hospital and intensive care units (ICU). The growing demand of ICU ventilators in a short lapse of time constitutes one of the main community concerns. The main goal of this communication is to give simple solutions to transform a noninvasive ventilator in an invasive one for intubated patients. The proposal can be applied in two well defined strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic: To replace anesthesia workstations, leaving those machines to be used in patients. To apply this option in COVID-19 patients by way of a therapeutic "bridge", waiting for the release of a ventilator in the ICU


Assuntos
Humanos , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Ventiladores Mecânicos/classificação , Ventilação não Invasiva/instrumentação , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave/terapia , Planejamento de Instituições de Saúde/métodos , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Vírus da SARS/patogenicidade , Pandemias , Simulação/métodos
15.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0238679, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32881950

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To investigate the role of lung ultrasound score (LUS) in assessing intubation timing for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were admitted to a makeshift intensive care unit (ICU). All patients underwent bedside lung ultrasonography one to two times per day. The patients were either intubated, treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or given high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) after a discussion with the multidisciplinary group after their conditions worsened. Bedside lung ultrasound was performed daily after intubation, and patients received mechanical ventilation. Lung ultrasound was performed on days 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 after patients were admitted to the ICU; if the patient was intubated, LUS determination was performed before intubation within 24 h (T1) and on days 1, 2, 5, and 7 after intubation (T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively).The goal of this study was to evaluate the severity of lung aeration loss in intubated and non-intubated patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia by ultrasound at different time points within one week. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients were included in this study, including nine who were intubated and mechanically ventilated and seven patients without intubation. The number of elderly individuals in the intubated group was higher than in the non-intubated group (P < 0.05). In addition, there were more male than female patients in both groups. Patient characteristics (BMI, SOFA, and PaO2/FiO2 value) were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). The 28-day mortality rate of intubated patients was higher than that of non-intubated patients; six patients in the intubated group and two patients in the non-intubated group died. Nine intubated patients showed changes in LUS within seven days (n = 9). The mean LUS within 24 h before intubation was 12.8 ± 1.3. LUS was significantly higher on T1 than on T5 (P <0.05), and did not significantly differ from T1 to T4. Comparing LUS between intubated and non-intubated patients on T1 showed that the LUS of intubated patients was significantly higher than that of non-intubated patients (P <0.05). Between the two patient groups, oxygenation index was 140.1 ± 7.7 vs. 137.8 ± 5.9 on T1, and the respiratory rate of the two groups was 26 ± 5 vs. 28 ± 4 breaths/min. Neither oxygenation index nor RR significantly differed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: LUS may be an effective tool for assessing intubation timing in critically ill patients with Covid-19 interstitial pneumonia.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Pulmão/diagnóstico por imagem , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Ultrassonografia/métodos , Idoso , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico por imagem , Feminino , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico por imagem , Respiração Artificial/efeitos adversos , Fatores de Tempo
16.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 20(1): 232, 2020 09 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32928122

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The challenges posed by the spread of COVID-19 disease through aerosols have compelled anesthesiologists to modify their airway management practices. Devices such as barrier boxes are being considered as potential adjuncts to full PPE's to limit the aerosol spread. Usage of the barrier box raises concerns of delay in time to intubate (TTI). We designed our study to determine if using a barrier box with glidescope delays TTI within acceptable parameters to make relevant clinical conclusions. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled in this prospective non-inferiority controlled trial and were randomly allocated to either group C (without the barrier box) or the study group BB (using barrier box). The primary measured endpoint is time to intubate (TTI), which is defined as time taken from loss of twitches confirmed with a peripheral nerve stimulator to confirmation of end-tidal CO 2. 15 s was used as non-inferiority margin for the purpose of the study. We used an unpaired two-sample single-sided t-test to test our non- inferiority hypothesis (H 0: Mean TTI diff ≥15 s, H A: Mean TTI diff < 15 s). Secondary endpoints include the number of attempts at intubation, lowest oxygen saturation during induction, and the need for bag-mask ventilation. RESULTS: Mean TTI in group C was 42 s (CI 19.2 to 64.8) vs. 52.1 s (CI 26.1 to 78) in group BB. The difference in mean TTI was 10.1 s (CI -∞ to 14.9). We rejected the null hypothesis and concluded with 95% confidence that the difference of the mean TTI between the groups is less than < 15 s (95% CI -∞ to 14.9,p = 0.0461). Our induction times were comparable (67.7 vs. 65.9 s).100% of our patients were intubated on the first attempt in both groups. None of our patients needed rescue breaths. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in patients with normal airway exam, scheduled for elective surgeries, our barrier box did not cause any clinically significant delay in TTI when airway manipulation is performed by well-trained providers. The study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04411056) on May 27, 2020.


Assuntos
Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Anestesiologia/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Adulto , Aerossóis , Idoso , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/instrumentação , Anestesiologistas/organização & administração , Anestesiologia/instrumentação , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/instrumentação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Estudos Prospectivos , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Fatores de Tempo
18.
West J Emerg Med ; 21(5): 1042-1045, 2020 Aug 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32970551

RESUMO

The novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as large numbers of patients requiring endotracheal intubation. While much of the literature has focused on the intubation technique, there is scant discussion of intubation confirmation. Herein, we discuss the limitations of traditional confirmatory approaches, summarize the literature supporting a role for point-of-care ultrasound in this application, and propose an algorithm for intubation confirmation among COVID-19 patients.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/métodos , Algoritmos , Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico por imagem , Humanos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico por imagem
19.
West J Emerg Med ; 21(5): 1080-1083, 2020 Aug 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32970558

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Barrier enclosures have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare providers during intubation, but little is known about their impact on procedure performance. We sought to determine whether a barrier enclosure delays time to successful intubation by experienced airway operators. METHODS: We conducted a crossover simulation study at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants watched a four-minute video, practiced one simulated intubation with a barrier enclosure, and then completed one intubation with and one without the barrier enclosure (randomized to determine order). The primary outcome measure was time from placement of the video laryngoscope at the lips to first delivered ventilation. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and participant responses to a post-study survey. RESULTS: Proceduralists (n = 50) from emergency medicine and anesthesiology had median intubation times of 23.6 seconds with practice barrier enclosure, 20.5 seconds with barrier enclosure, and 16.7 seconds with no barrier. Intubation with barrier enclosure averaged 4.5 seconds longer (95% confidence interval, 2.7-6.4, p < .001) than without, but was less than the predetermined clinical significance threshold of 10 seconds. Three complications occurred, all during the practice intubation. Barrier enclosure made intubation more challenging according to 48%, but 90% indicated they would consider using it in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Experienced airway operators performed intubation using a barrier enclosure with minimal increased time to procedure completion in this uncomplicated airway model. Given potential to reduce droplet spread, use of a barrier enclosure may be an acceptable adjunct to endotracheal intubation for those familiar with its use.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Competência Clínica/estatística & dados numéricos , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Intubação Intratraqueal/instrumentação , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Adulto , Anestesiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Estudos Cross-Over , Medicina de Emergência , Feminino , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Laringoscópios , Masculino , Manequins , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Fatores de Tempo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA