Dexmedetomidine for enhanced recovery after non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery combines a minimally invasive technique with multimodal locoregional analgesia to enhance recovery. The mainstay sedation protocol involves propofol and fentanyl. Dexmedetomidine, given its opioid-sparing effect with minimal respiratory depression, facilitates sedation in non-intubated patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine during non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. METHODS: A total of 114 patients who underwent non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery between June 2015 and September 2017 were retrospectively evaluated. Of these, 34 were maintained with dexmedetomidine, propofol, and fentanyl, and 80 were maintained with propofol and fentanyl. After a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis incorporating sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, pulmonary disease and hypertension, the clinical outcomes of 34 pairs of patients were assessed. RESULTS: The dexmedetomidine group showed a significantly lower opioid consumption [10.3 (5.7-15.1) vs. 18.8 (10.0-31.0) mg, median (interquartile range); P = 0.001] on postoperative day 0 and a significantly shorter postoperative length of stay [3 (2-4) vs. 4 (3-5) days, median (interquartile range), P = 0.006] than the control group. During operation, the proportion of vasopressor administration was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group [18 (53) vs. 7 (21), patient number (%), P = 0.01]. On the other hand, the difference of the hypotension and bradycardia incidence, short-term morbidity and mortality rates between each group were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Adding adjuvant dexmedetomidine to propofol and fentanyl is safe and feasible for non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. With its opioid-sparing effect and shorter postoperative length of stay, dexmedetomidine may enhance recovery after surgery.

Experiences of maintaining awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patient compliance is crucial to maintaining the awake prone position, which has been found to be intolerable by several patients. Addressing patients' compliance while being treated with awake prone positioning and prolonging its duration may be prerequisites for further research. AIM: This study was conducted to explore the personal experiences of non-intubated patients during the implementation of awake prone positioning. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study recruiting a purposive sample of twelve adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were previously treated with awake prone positioning. They were recruited from an intermediate care unit (that provides pre- and post-intensive care) in a COVID-19-designated hospital in Nanjing, China from July 15, 2021, to September 20, 2021. Data were collected through individual in-depth interviews and then analysed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method. RESULTS: Content analysis of the interviews revealed two main themes, each containing three and four sub-themes, respectively, as follows: (1) barriers to the implementation of awake prone positioning, including (i) generalised discomfort, (ii) a lack of both understanding and trust, and (iii) low satisfaction with the implementation plan; (2) factors promoting the implementation of awake prone positioning, including (i) health education and supervision, (ii) self-motivation and support from healthcare staff and family members, (iii) finding a comfortable position and having access to entertainment, and (iv) symptom improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare staff should clarify the mechanism underlying the effectiveness of the awake prone position to patients to eliminate any doubts that they may have. Psychological support and appropriate supervision should be emphasised. Pain relief programmes should also be established, including the use of a comfortable prone posture in conjunction with access to entertainment. Finally, individualised awake prone positioning protocols should be formulated according to patients' living habits and attempted in combination with out-of-bed activities. These measures may help to enhance the experience and compliance of patients undergoing the treatment. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: For future instances involving the implementation of awake prone positioning, several measures should be established and implemented alongside it, including a health education programme, supervision programme, support system, and pain relief programme. Personalisation should also be considered during its implementation. These measures may help to enhance the compliance of patients and prolong the duration of the awake prone position.

Effectiveness of tocilizumab in non-intubated cases with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Tocilizumab, a monoclonal IL-6 receptor blocker, is an effective agent for severe-to-critical cases of COVID-19; however, its target patients for the optimum use need to be detailed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define its effect among severely ill but non-intubated cases with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medrxiv, and Biorxiv until February 13, 2022, for non-intubated cases, and included randomized-controlled trials (RCT) based on bias assessment. The primary outcomes were the requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. Random effect and fixed-effect models were used. The heterogeneity was measured using the χ2 and I2 statistics, with χ2 p ≤ 0.05 and I2 ≥ 50% indicating the presence of significant heterogeneity. We registered the study to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42021232575. RESULTS: Among 261 articles, 11 RCTs were included. The pooled analysis of the 11 RCTs demonstrated that the rate of mortality was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group than in the control group (20.0% and 24.2%, OR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96, and heterogeneity I2 = 0%. p = 0.82.). The mechanical ventilation rate was lower in the tocilizumab group than the control group (27% vs 35.2%, OR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86, and heterogeneity I2 = 6%. p = 0.39). CONCLUSION: Among non-intubated severe COVID-19 cases, tocilizumab reduces the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality compared to standard-of-care treatment.

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxic respiratory failure: a systematic review based on eight high-quality randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been widely used in non-intubated patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19, but the evidence is mostly from observational studies and low-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with conflicting results from published studies. A systematic review of published high-quality RCTs to resolve the controversy over the efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with AHRF due to COVID-19. METHODS: Candidate studies were identified through searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus databases from December 1, 2019 to November 1, 2022. Literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently conducted by two researchers. RESULTS: Eight RCTs involving 2657 patients were included. Meta-analysis of fixed effects models showed that awake prone positioning did not increase mortality(OR = 0.88, 95%CI [0.72, 1.08]), length of stay in ICU (WMD = 1.14, 95%CI [-0.45, 2.72]), total length of stay (WMD = 0.11, 95%CI [-1.02, 1.23]), or incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.02, 95%CI [0.79, 1.31]) compared with usual care, but significantly reduced the intubation rate (OR = 0.72, 95%CI [0.60, 0.86]). Similar results were found in a subgroup analysis of patients who received only high flow nasal cannula (Mortality: OR = 0.86, 95%CI [0.70, 1.05]; Intubation rate: OR = 0.69, 95%CI [0.58, 0.83]). All eight RCTs had high quality of evidence, which ensured the reliability of the meta-analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: Awake prone positioning is safe and feasible in non-intubated patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19, and can significantly reduce the intubation rate. More studies are needed to explore standardized implementation strategies for the awake prone positioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42023394113.

Prone position versus usual care in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients in medical wards: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Benefit of early awake prone positioning for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in medical wards and who need oxygen therapy remains to be demonstrated. The question was considered at the time of COVID-19 pandemic to avoid overloading the intensive care units. We aimed to determine whether prone position plus usual care could reduce the rate of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubation or death as compared to usual care alone. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised clinical trial, 268 patients were randomly assigned to awake prone position plus usual care (N = 135) or usual care alone (N = 132). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent NIV or intubation or died within 28 days. Main secondary outcomes included the rates of NIV, of intubation or death, within 28 days. RESULTS: Median time spent each day in the prone position within 72 h of randomisation was 90 min (IQR 30-133). The proportion of NIV or intubation or death within 28 days was 14.1% (19/135) in the prone position group and 12.9% (17/132) in the usual care group [odds ratio adjusted for stratification (aOR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-1.35]. The probability of intubation, or intubation or death (secondary outcomes) was lower in the prone position group than in the usual care group (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.89 and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.76, respectively) in the whole study population and in the prespecified subgroup of patients with SpO2 ≥ 95% on inclusion (aOR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.90, and aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.03-0.27, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Awake prone position plus usual care in COVID-19 patients in medical wards did not decrease the composite outcome of need for NIV or intubation or death. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04363463 . Registered 27 April 2020.

Analysis of the efficacy of subclinical doses of esketamine in combination with propofol in non-intubated general anesthesia procedures - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room is growing as the increasing demand for comfort treatment. Non-intubated general anesthesia outside the operating room requires rapid onset of anesthesia, smoothness, quick recovery, and few postoperative complications. Traditional anesthetic regimens (propofol alone or propofol and opioids/dezocine/midazolam, etc.) have severe respiratory and circulatory depression and many systemic adverse effects. In this paper, we compare the effectiveness and safety of propofol and subclinical doses of esketamine with other traditional regimens applied to non-intubated general anesthesia through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed databases for the period from January 2000 to October 2022. We rigorously screened the literature according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, while risk assessment of the studies was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and statistical analysis of the data was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The main outcome indicators we evaluated were the various hemodynamic parameters and incidence of various adverse effects between the experimental and control groups after induction of anesthesia. RESULTS: After a rigorous screening process, a total of 14 papers were included in the final meta-analysis. After risk bias assessment, three of the papers were judged as low risk and the others were judged as having moderate to high risk. Forest plots were drawn for a total of 16 indicators. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in HR' WMD 3.27 (0.66, 5.87), MAP' WMD 9.68 (6.13, 13.24), SBP' WMD 5.42 (2.11, 8.73), DBP' WMD 4.02 (1.15, 6.88), propofol dose' SMD -1.39 (-2.45, -0.33), hypotension' RR 0.30 (0.20, 0.45), bradycardia' RR 0.33 (0.14, 0.77), hypoxemia or apnea' RR 0.45 (0.23, 0.89), injection pain' RR 0.28 (0.13, 0.60), intraoperative choking' RR 0.62 (0.50, 0.77), intraoperative body movements' RR 0.48 (0.29, 0.81) and overall incidence of adverse reactions' RR 0.52 (0.39, 0.70).The indicators that were not statistically different were time to wake up' WMD - 0.55 (-1.29, 0.19), nausea and vomiting 0.84' RR (0.43, 1.67), headache and dizziness' RR 1.57 (0.98, 2.50) and neuropsychiatric reaction' RR 1.05 (0.28, 3.93). The funnel plot showed that the vast majority of studies fell within the funnel interval, but the symmetry was relatively poor. CONCLUSION: In non-intubated general anesthesia, the combination of subclinical doses of esketamine and propofol did reduce circulatory and respiratory depression, injection pain, and other adverse effects, while the incidence of esketamine's own side effects such as neuropsychiatric reactions did not increase, and the combination of the two did not cause the occurrence of new and more serious adverse reactions, and the combination of the two was safe and effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPREO registration number: CRD 42022368966.

Opioid-sparing anesthesia with dexmedetomidine provides stable hemodynamic and short hospital stay in non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a propensity score matching cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 agonist with anti-anxiety, sedative, and analgesic effects and causes a lesser degree of respiratory depression. We hypothesized that the use of dexmedetomidine in non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) may reduce opioid-related complications such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), dyspnea, constipation, dizziness, skin itching, and cause minimal respiratory depression, and stable hemodynamic status. METHODS: Patients who underwent non-intubated VATS lung wedge resection with propofol combined with dexmedetomidine (group D) or alfentanil (group O) between December 2016 and May 2022 were enrolled in this retrospective propensity score matching cohort study. Intraoperative vital signs, arterial blood gas data, perioperative results and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Of 100 patients included in the study (group D, 50 and group O, 50 patients), group D had a significantly lower degree of decrement in the heart rate and the blood pressure than group O. Intraoperative one-lung arterial blood gas revealed lower pH and significant ETCO2. The common opioid-related side effects, including PONV, dyspnea, constipation, dizziness, and skin itching, all of which occurred more frequently in group O than in group D. Patients in group O had significantly longer postoperative hospital stay and total hospital stay than group D, which might be due to opioid-related side effects postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The application of dexmedetomidine in non-intubated VATS resulted in a significant reduction in perioperative opioid-related complications and maintenance with acceptable hemodynamic performance. These clinical outcomes found in our retrospective study may enhance patient satisfaction and shorten the hospital stay.

Comparisons on the intraoperative desaturation and postoperative outcomes in non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery with supraglottic airway devices or high-flow nasal oxygen: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared intraoperative oxygenation and perioperative outcomes between non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (NIVATS) with supraglottic airway devices (SADs) and NIVATS with high flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO). The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the intraoperative desaturation rate and postoperative outcomes between NIVATS with SADs and NIVATS with HFNO. METHODS: Data regarding NIVATS performed for lung cancer from January 2020 to December 2021 were collected. Intraoperative anesthetic results, post-anesthetic adverse effects, and surgical outcomes for patients who received SAD or HFNO were analyzed using propensity score-matched and unmatched analysis. RESULTS: In total, 199 patients with i-gel™ and 95 patients with HFNO were included. Significantly more female patients (91.6 vs. 82.4%, p = 0.0378) and fewer wedge resections (78.9 vs. 85.4%, p = 0.0258) were observed in the HFNO group. Among 250 patients who underwent NIVATS wedge resections under total intravenous anesthesia, those who received HFNO had a significantly higher desaturation event rate (19.8% vs. 7.9% in i-gel™ group; p = 0.0063), lower nadir SPO2 (94.0% vs. 96.1% in i-gel™ group; p = 0.0012), and longer hospitalization (4.0 ± 0.8 vs. 3.6 ± 0.6 in i-gel™ group; p < 0.0001). However, propensity score matching analysis revealed no significant between-group difference in the desaturation rate. A log-rank test revealed that smoking (p = 0.0005) and HFNO (p = 0.0074) were associated with intraoperative desaturation. CONCLUSION: The rate of SAD use in NIVATS was twice the rate of HFNO use, especially for wedge resections. There is uncertain airway patency and limited flow through HFNO during one-lung ventilation, whereas SADs like i-gel™ presented a significantly less intraoperative desaturation rate over time and similar postoperative outcomes.

Adverse effects of non-intubated airway suctioning: a clinical data-based study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the adverse effects of non-intubated suctioning. BACKGROUND: Airway hygiene aims to maintain a patent airway to ensure adequate ventilation. Nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal or nasotracheal suctioning may be used in patients who require airway suctioning but do not have an artificial airway. However, no studies till date provide insight into the adverse effects of non-intubated airway suctioning. DESIGN: A clinical data-based retrospective design. METHOD: Using institutional and clinical databases of three university hospitals in 2008-2016, we conducted a study with a propensity score matching method of 3,326 hospitalised patients who had undergone suction therapy with or without a tracheotomy. Conditional logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the link between suctioning and the probabilities of adverse effects. STROBE checklist was used to report the current study. RESULTS: Patients who required nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal or nasotracheal suctioning had a higher risk of gastrointestinal ulcers than tracheotomised patients (adjusted OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.24-3.20). Patients who received non-intubated suction had a higher risk of developing pneumonia (adjusted OR 1.59; 95% CI, 1.26-2.00), and the risk of aspiration pneumonia was three times higher than tracheotomised patients (adjusted OR 3.04; 95% CI, 1.40-6.60). CONCLUSIONS: Non-intubated patients who require suctioning for airway clearing are more susceptible to gastrointestinal ulcers, pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia. The findings would facilitate in alerting healthcare professionals to this group of patients. However, more clinical research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of adverse effects in non-intubated patients who require suctioning. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The adverse effects of suctioning can easily be overlooked in debilitated patients with no intubation. Professionals must be aware of the discomfort and risks that patients may experience.

Effects of awake-prone positioning on oxygenation and physiological outcomes in non-intubated patients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning is a well-known supportive approach for increasing oxygenation and reducing mortality in non-COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, studies highlighting the effects of proning in patients with COVID-19 are limited. AIM: To investigate the effects of awake-prone positioning (APP) on oxygenation and physiological outcomes in non-intubated patients with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was carried out with two parallel groups at 1:1 ratio. Adult awake non-intubated patients with confirmed COVID-19, non-rebreathing face mask or continuous positive airway pressure, PaO2 /FiO2 ratio ≤150 mmHg were randomly assigned to the APP group or control group. The control group was subjected to conventional positioning interventions. Outcome measures were PaO2 /FiO2 ratio, ROX index, PaO2 , PaCO2 , SaO2 , respiratory rate, blood pressure, and shock index. These parameters were recorded immediately before positioning, 10 min after patient positioning, and 1 h after patient positioning. RESULTS: Of 115 patients assessed for eligibility, 82 were randomized to the APP group or control group (41 patients in each group). The use of APP for non-intubated patients with COVID-19 resulted in statistically significant improvements in oxygenation parameters, that is, SpO2 , PaO2 /FiO2 , ROX index, PaO2 , and SaO2 , at the three study time points (p = .000, .007, .000, .011, and .000 respectively). The SpO2 was increased to 92.15 ± 2.735 mmHg for the APP group versus 88.17 ± 4.847 for the control group after 1 h of patients' positioning. The PaO2 /FiO2 ratio increased in the APP group before proning compared with 1 h after proning (79.95 ± 22.508 vs. 98.91 ± 34.44) respectively. APP improved the SpO2 , PaO2 /FiO2 , ROX index, PaO2 , and SaO2 values for the APP group, representing an increase of 5.85%, 23.71%, 30.79%, 22.59%, and 5.26%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Awake proning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 showed marked improvement in oxygenation and physiological parameters. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study provides evidence for critical care nurses to implement APP in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 to improve oxygenation and physiological parameters, as it was tolerated by most of the patients without serious adverse events.

Thoracic surgery in the non-intubated spontaneously breathing patient.

BACKGROUND: The interest in non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (NIVATS) has risen over the last decade and numerous terms have been used to describe this technique. They all have in common, that the surgical procedure is performed in a spontaneously breathing patient under locoregional anaesthesia in combination with intravenous sedation but have also been performed on awake patients without sedation. Evidence has been generated favouring NIVATS compared to one-lung-ventilation under general anaesthesia. MAIN BODY: We want to give an overview of how NIVATS is performed, and which different techniques are possible. We discuss advantages such as shorter length of hospital stay or (relative) contraindications like airway difficulties. Technical aspects, for instance intraoperative handling of the vagus nerve, are considered from a thoracic surgeon's point of view. Furthermore, special attention is paid to the cohort of patients with interstitial lung diseases, who seem to benefit from NIVATS due to the avoidance of positive pressure ventilation. Whenever a new technique is introduced, it must prove noninferiority to the state of the art. Under this aspect current literature on NIVATS for lung cancer surgery has been reviewed. CONCLUSION: NIVATS technique may safely be applied to minor, moderate, and major thoracic procedures and is appropriate for a selected group of patients, especially in interstitial lung disease. However, prospective studies are urgently needed.

Perioperative outcomes of non-intubated versus intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in different thoracic procedures: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (NIVATS) is increasingly performed in different types of thoracic procedures. Based on the anesthetic perspective, the outcomes of this method are limited. General anesthesia with intubation and controlled ventilation for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (IVATS) is a standard technique. The current study aimed to compare the pulmonary gas exchange between NIVATS and IVATS, with a focus on desaturation event. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at Vajira Hospital. Data were collected from the hospital medical record database between January 9, 2019, and May 15, 2020. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to adjust the confounders by indications and contraindication between NIVATS and IVATS. The perioperative outcomes of VATS and NIVATS were compared by the regression analysis method. RESULTS: In total, 180 patients were included in the analysis. There were 98 and 82 patients in the NIVATS and IVATS groups, respectively. After a propensity score matching, the number of patients with similar characteristics decreased to 52 per group. None of the patients in both groups experienced desaturation. The lowest oxygen saturation of the NIVATS and IVATS groups did not significantly differ (96.5% vs. 99%, respectively; p = 0.185). The NIVATS group had a significantly higher ETCO2 peak than the IVATS group (43 vs. 36 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.001). According to the regression analysis, the NIVATS group had a significantly shorter anesthetic induction time (Mean difference (MD) = -5.135 min (95% CI = (- 8.878)- (-1.391)) and lower volume of blood loss (MD = -75.565 ml (95%CI = (- 131.08)-(- 20.65) but a higher intraoperative ETCO2 than the IVATS group (MD = 4.561 mmHg (95%CI = 1.852-7.269). Four patients in the NIVATS group required conversion to intubation due to difficulties encountered when using the surgical technique (7.7%, p = 0.041). Seven patients in the IVATS group, but none in the NIVATS group, presented with sore throat (13.5% vs. 0%, respectively; p = 0.006). Moreover, none of the patients in both groups experienced postoperative pneumonia, underwent reoperation, or died. CONCLUSIONS: The anesthetic and surgical outcomes of NIVATS were comparable to those of IVATS.

Italian survey on non-intubated thoracic surgery: results from INFINITY group.

BACKGROUND: Non-Intubated Thoracic Surgery (NITS) is becoming increasingly adopted all over the world. Although it is mainly used for pleural operations,, non-intubated parenchymal lung surgery has been less frequently reported. Recently, NITS utilization seems to be increased also in Italy, albeit there are no multi-center studies confirming this finding. The objective of this survey is to assess quantitatively and qualitatively the performance of NITS in Italy. METHODS: In 2018 a web-based national survey on Non-Intubated management including both thoracic surgeons and anesthesiologists was carried out. Reference centers have been asked to answer 32 questions. Replies were collected from June 26 to November 31, 2019. RESULTS: We raised feedbacks from 95% (55/58) of Italian centers. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents perform NITS but only 38% of them used this strategy for parenchymal surgery. These procedures are more frequently carried out in patients with severe comorbidities and/or with poor lung function. Several issues as obesity, previous non-invasive ventilation and/or oxygen therapy are considered contraindications to NITS. The regional anesthesia technique most used to provide intra- and postoperative analgesia was the paravertebral block (37%). Conversion to general anesthesia is not anecdotal (31% of answerers). More than half of the centers believed that NITS may reduce postoperative intensive care unit admissions. Approximately a quarter of the centers are conducting trials on NITS and, three quarters of the respondent suppose that the number of these procedures will increase in the future. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing interest in Italy for NITS and this survey provides a clear view of the national management framework of these procedures.

Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under combination of erector spinae plane block and thoracic paravertebral block.

BACKGROUND: The use of anesthetics and analgesic drugs and techniques in combination yields a multimodal effect with increased efficiency. In this case series, we aimed to evaluate the anesthetic effect of the thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) and erector spinae plane block (ESPB) combination in patients, who underwent non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (NIVATS). METHODS: Medical records of 16 patients, who underwent NIVATS for wedge resection under the combination of ESPB and TPVB were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic data of patients, duration of the sensory block, amount of the anesthetic agent used for premedication and sedo-analgesia, any presence of perioperative cough, operative times, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores in the postoperative follow-up period, the need for additional analgesia, and patient satisfaction were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the patients included in the study, 12 were men and 4 were women. The mean age was 48.6 years and the mean BMI was 24.7 kg/m2. The mean time needed for the achievement of the sensorial block was 14 min and the mean skin-to-skin operative time was 21.4 min. During the procedure, patients received 81.5 ± 27.7 mg of propofol and 30 ± 13.6 micrograms of remifentanil infusions, respectively. The mean dose of ketamine administered in total was 58.1 ± 12.2 mg. Only 2 patients needed an extra dose of remifentanil because of recurrent cough. No patients developed postoperative nausea vomiting. During the first 24 h, the VAS static scores of the patients were 3 and below, while VAS dynamic scores were 4 and below. Morphine consumption in the first postoperative 24 h was 13.2 mg. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, combined ESPB and TPVB with added intravenous sedo-analgesia in the presence of good cooperation between the surgical team and the anesthesiologist in the perioperative period can provide optimal surgical conditions including the prevention of cough in NIVATS. It is not sufficient to state that this combination is superior to alone ESPB or alone TPVB, as it is a preliminary study with a limited number of cases.

Early versus late awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) is widely used in the management of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this study was to compare the outcome of COVID-19 patients who received early versus late APP. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of data collected for a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906). Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 who received APP for at least one hour were included. Early prone positioning was defined as APP initiated within 24 h of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) start. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and intubation rate. RESULTS: We included 125 patients (79 male) with a mean age of 62 years. Of them, 92 (73.6%) received early APP and 33 (26.4%) received late APP. Median time from HFNC initiation to APP was 2.25 (0.8-12.82) vs 36.35 (30.2-75.23) hours in the early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. Average APP duration was 5.07 (2.0-9.05) and 3.0 (1.09-5.64) hours per day in early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. The early APP group had lower mortality compared to the late APP group (26% vs 45%, p = 0.039), but no difference was found in intubation rate. Advanced age (OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.0-1.95], p = 0.001), intubation (OR 10.65 [95% CI 2.77-40.91], p = 0.001), longer time to initiate APP (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.0-1.04], p = 0.047) and hydrocortisone use (OR 6.2 [95% CI 1.23-31.1], p = 0.027) were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation (< 24 h of HFNC use) of APP in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 improves 28-day survival. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906.

Procedural times in early non-intubated VATS program - a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (NiVATS) has been introduced to surgical medicine in order to reduce the invasiveness of anesthetic procedures and avoid adverse effects of intubation and one-lung ventilation (OLV). The aim of this study is to determine the time effectiveness of a NiVATS program compared to conventional OLV. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included all patients in Leipzig University Hospital that needed minor VATS surgery between November 2016 and October 2019 constituting a NiVATS (n = 67) and an OLV (n = 36) group. Perioperative data was matched via propensity score analysis, identifying two comparable groups with 23 patients. Matched pairs were compared via t-Test. RESULTS: Patients in NiVATS and OLV group show no significant differences other than the type of surgical procedure performed. Wedge resection was performed significantly more often under NiVATS conditions than with OLV (p = 0,043). Recovery time was significantly reduced by 7 min (p = 0,000) in the NiVATS group. There was no significant difference in the time for induction of anesthesia, duration of surgical procedure or overall procedural time. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery time was significantly shorter in NiVATS, but this effect disappeared when extrapolated to total procedural time. Even during the implementation phase of NiVATS programs, no extension of procedural times occurs.

Non-intubated uniportal subxiphoid thoracoscopic extended thymectomy for thymoma associated with myasthenia gravis.

BACKGROUND: To describe a technique of non-intubated uniportal subxiphoid thoracoscopic extended thymectomy. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively. A single 3-cm transverse incision was made below the xiphoid process. This method for extended thymectomy entails adoption of uniportal subxiphoid VATS combined with using of non-intubated anesthesia for thymoma associated with myasthenia gravis. RESULTS: Ten consecutive patients underwent this procedure successfully. Mean operative time was 102.5 min. Conversion to intubated ventilation or thoracotomy was not required. Mean chest tube duration was 3.5 days. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 4.7 days. Histologic examination showed early-stage thymomas. Side effects were rare. Quantitative MG scores decreased during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were uneventfully discharged with fast recovery. This technique may merge the potential benefits of a subxiphoid incision and the non-intubated anesthesia protocol.

Comparison of non-intubated and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries of major pulmonary resections for lung cancer-a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the safety feasibility and safety feasibility of non-intubated (NIVATS) and intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (IVATS) during major pulmonary resections. METHODS: A meta-analysis of eight studies was conducted to compare the real effects of two lobectomy or segmentectomy approaches during major pulmonary resections. RESULTS: Results showed that the patients using NIVATS had a greatly shorter hospital stay and chest-tube placement time (weighted mean difference (WMD): - 1.04 days; 95% CI - 1.50 to - 0.58; P < 0.01) WMD - 0.71 days; 95% confidence interval (CI), - 1.08 to - 0.34; P < 0.01, respectively) while compared to those with IVATS. There were no significant differences in postoperative complication rate, surgical duration, and the number of dissected lymph nodes. However, through the analysis of highly selected patients with lung cancer in early stage, the rate of postoperative complication in the NIVATS group was lower than that in the IVATS group [odds ratio (OR) 0.44; 95% CI 0.21-0.92; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%]. CONCLUSIONS: Although the comparable postoperative complication rate was observed for major thoracic surgery in two surgical procedures, the NIVATS method could significantly shorten the hospitalized stay and chest-tube placement time compared with IVATS. Therefore, for highly selected patients, NIVATS is regarded as a safe and technically feasible procedure for major thoracic surgery. The assessment of the safety and feasibility for patients undergoing NIVATS needs further multi-center prospective clinical trials.

Proning in Non-Intubated (PINI) in Times of COVID-19: Case Series and a Review.

It has been well known for decades that prone positioning (PP) improves oxygenation. However, it has gained widespread acceptance only in the last few years since studies have shown significant survival benefit. Many centers have established prone ventilation in their treatment algorithm for mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Physiologically, PP should also benefit awake, non-intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, proning in non-intubated (PINI) patients did not gain any momentum until a few months ago when the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic surged. A large number of sick patients overwhelmed the health care system, and many centers faced a dearth of ventilators. In addition, outcomes of patients placed on mechanical ventilation because of COVID-19 infection have been highly variable and often dismal. Hence, increased focus has shifted to using various strategies to prevent intubation, such as PINI. There is accumulating evidence that PINI is a low-risk intervention that can be performed even outside intensive care unit with minimal assistance and may prevent intubation in certain patients with ARDS. It can also be performed safely at smaller centers and, therefore, may reduce the patient transfer to larger institutions that are overwhelmed in the current crisis. We present a case series of 2 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure who experienced significant improvements in oxygenation with PP. In addition, the physiology of PP is described, and concerns such as proning in obese and patient's anxiety are addressed; an educational pamphlet that may be useful for both patients and health care providers is provided.

Tubeless uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection with modified air leak test and chest tube drainage.

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether tubeless uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection with modified air leak test and chest tube drainage has better short-term outcomes than non-intubated approach with chest tube drainage. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from January 2017 and December 2019. Tubeless group included 55 patients with pulmonary nodules underwent tubeless uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection, 211 patients underwent non-intubated uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection with chest tube drainage were included in drainage group. Peri-operative outcomes between two groups were compared. RESULTS: After 1:1 matching, 110 patients remained for analysis, baseline demographic and clinical variables were comparable between the two groups. Mean incision size was 3 cm in both group. Mean operative time was 59.3 min in tubeless group and 52.8 min in drainage group. The detectable mean lowest SpO2 and mean peak EtCO2 during operation was acceptable in both groups. Conversion to intubated ventilation or thoracotomy was not required. No patient failed the air leak test and did not undergo a tubeless procedure. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 1.5 days in tubeless group and 2.5 days in drainage group. Residual pneumothorax or subcutaneous emphysema was not frequent and mild in tubeless group. Side effects were rare and mild, including cough and hemoptysis. No re-intervention or readmission occurred. The postoperative VAS score was significantly lower in tubeless group. CONCLUSIONS: Tubeless uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection with modified air leak test and chest tube drainage is feasible and safe for selected patients with peripheral pulmonary nodules, it might reduce post-operation pain and lead to faster recovery.