Comparison of Forceps, Cryoprobe, and Thoracoscopic Lung Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Interstitial Lung Disease - The CHILL Study.

RATIONALE: Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) has emerged as a less invasive method to obtain a tissue diagnosis in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). The diagnostic yield of TBLC compared to surgical lung biopsy (SLB) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of forceps transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB) and TBLC compared to SLB when making the final diagnosis based on multidisciplinary discussion (MDD). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the study underwent sequential TBLB and TBLC followed immediately by SLB. De-identified cases, with blinding of the biopsy method, were reviewed by a blinded pathologist and then discussed at a multidisciplinary conference. MAIN RESULTS: Between August 2013 and October 2017, we enrolled 16 patients. The raw agreement between TBLC and SLB for the MDD final diagnosis was 68.75% with a Cohen's kappa of 0.6 (95% CI 0.39, 0.81). Raw agreement and Cohen's kappa of TBLB versus TBLC and TBLB versus SLB for the MDD final diagnosis were much lower (50%, 0.21 [95% CI 0, 0.42] and 18.75%, 0.08 [95% CI -0.03, 0.19], respectively). TBLC was associated with mild bleeding (grade 1 bleeding requiring suction to clear) in 56.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ILD who have an uncertain type based on clinical and radiographic data and require tissue sampling to obtain a specific diagnosis, TBLC showed moderate correlation with SLB when making the diagnosis with MDD guidance. TBLB showed poor concordance with both TBLC and SLB MDD diagnoses.

Association of Red Blood Cell Transfusion Thresholds and Outcomes in Medical Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure Supported with Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The hemoglobin value to trigger red blood cell (RBC) transfusion for patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is controversial. Previous guidelines recommended transfusing to a normal hemoglobin, but recent studies suggest more RBC transfusions are associated with increased adverse outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is implementation of different institutional RBC transfusion thresholds for patients receiving VV-ECMO associated with changes in RBC utilization and patient outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Single-center retrospective study of patients receiving VV-ECMO using segmented regression to test associations between implementation of institutional transfusion thresholds and trends in RBC utilization. Associations with secondary outcomes, including in-hospital survival, were also assessed. RESULTS: The study included 229 patients: 91 in the "no threshold (NT)" cohort, 48 in the "hemoglobin <8 g/dL (<8 g/dL)" cohort and 90 in the "hemoglobin <7 g/dL (<7 g/dL)" cohort. Despite a decrease in RBC/ECMO day following implementation of different thresholds, (mean +/- SD; 0.6 +/- 1.0 in the NT cohort, 0.3 +/- 0.8 in the <8 g/dL cohort, and 0.3 +/- 1.1 in the <7 g/dL cohort, p < 0.001), segmented regression showed no association between implementation of transfusion thresholds and changes in trends in RBC/ECMO day. We observed an increased hazard of death in the NT cohort compared to the <8 g/dL cohort (aHR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.12-3.88), and in the <7 g/dL cohort compared to the <8g/dL cohort (aHR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.02-3.62). There was no difference in the hazard of death between the NT and <7 g/dL cohorts (aHR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.69-1.69). INTERPRETATION: We observed a decrease in RBC/ECMO day over time, but changes were not associated temporally with implementation of transfusion thresholds. A transfusion threshold of hemoglobin <8 g/dL was associated with a lower hazard of death, but these findings are limited by study methodology. Further research is needed investigating optimal RBC transfusion practices for patients supported with VV-ECMO.

A Daily, Respiratory Therapist Assessment of Readiness to Liberate From Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

We assessed the effect of implementing a protocol-directed strategy to determine when patients can be liberated from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation duration, time to initiation of first sweep-off trial, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and survival to hospital discharge. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective before and after study. SETTING: The medical ICU at an academic medical center. PATIENTS: One-hundred eighty patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome managed with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at a single institution from 2013 to 2019. INTERVENTIONS: In 2016, our institution implemented a daily assessment of readiness for a trial off extracorporeal membrane oxygenation sweep gas ("sweep-off trial"). When patients met prespecified criteria, the respiratory therapist performed a sweep-off trial to determine readiness for discontinuation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were treated before implementation of the sweep-off trial protocol, and 113 patients were treated after implementation. Patients managed using the sweep-off trial protocol had a significantly shorter extracorporeal membrane oxygenation duration (5.5 d [3-11 d] vs 11 d [7-15.5 d]; p < 0.001), time to first sweep-off trial (2.5 d [1-5 d] vs 7.0 d [5-11 d]; p < 0.001), duration of mechanical ventilation (15.0 d [9-31 d] vs 25 d [21-33 d]; p = 0.017), and ICU length of stay (18 d [10-33 d] vs 27.0 d [21-36 d]; p = 0.008). There were no observed differences in hospital length of stay or survival to hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome managed with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at our institution, implementation of a daily, respiratory therapist assessment of readiness for a sweep-off trial was associated with a shorter time to first sweep-off trial and shorter duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Among survivors, the postassessment group had a reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU lengths of stay. There were no observed differences in hospital length of stay or inhospital mortality.

Central Repair With Antegrade TEVAR for Malperfusion Syndromes in Acute Debakey I Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: In acute DeBakey I aortic dissection presenting with malperfusion syndromes, we assessed whether standard open repair with concomitant antegrade stent grafting (thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair; TEVAR) of the descending thoracic aorta (DTA) improves outcomes compared with standard repair alone. METHODS: From 2005 to 2012, 277 patients with acute DeBakey I dissection underwent emergent operation. Of these, 104 patients (37%) presenting with end-organ malperfusion were divided into those undergoing standard distal repair entailing transverse hemiarch replacement (Standard group, n = 65) versus standard repair with concomitant DTA TEVAR during circulatory arrest (TEVAR group, n = 39). Prospectively maintained aortic dissection database was retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics and preoperative comorbidities were similar. Circulatory arrest (56 ± 12 versus 34 ± 14 minutes, p < 0.001) and cross-clamp (176 ± 43 versus 119 ± 80, p = 0.001) times were longer in the TEVAR group. Overall, postoperative stroke rate (5% [n = 2] versus 6% [n = 4], p = 1), paraplegia rate (5% [n = 2] versus 5% [n = 3], p = 1.0), and renal failure rate (10% [n = 4] versus 22% [n = 14], p = 0.2) were similar. In-hospital/30-day mortality rate was lower in the TEVAR group but was not significant (18% (n = 7) versus 34% [n = 22], p = 0.1). In patients presenting with malperfusion involving greater than one end-organ system, the mortality rate was significantly improved in the TEVAR group (28% [n = 6] versus 58% [n = 14], p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Standard repair with antegrade TEVAR of the DTA for acute DeBakey I aortic dissection presenting with malperfusion syndromes can be safely performed. Further, true lumen stabilization achieved through DTA TEVAR may provide a survival benefit in patients with distal multiorgan malperfusion.

Minimally Invasive Port Access Approach for Reoperations on the Mitral Valve.

BACKGROUND: In patients requiring a second-time or more operation on the mitral valve (MV), we assessed whether the outcomes of the minimally invasive port access approach (port access group) were equivalent to those of the traditional redo sternotomy approach (redo sternotomy group). METHODS: In a retrospective review (1998-2011), 409 patients had previous MV operations requiring a second-time or more MV reintervention. Of those, 67 patients had the port access approach, and 342 had the redo sternotomy approach. Of the latter, 220 met the inclusion criteria because emergencies, patients with endocarditis, and those requiring concomitant procedures involving aortic valve and aorta were excluded. RESULTS: New York Heart Association class 2 or above, age, atrial fibrillation, and surgical indications were similar in both groups. The port access group had more patients with previous MV repair (78% [n = 52] vs 41% [n = 90], p < 0.01) than with MV replacement (19% [n = 13) vs 53% [n = 116], p < 0.01). Concomitant procedures were similar (20% [n = 14] vs 27% [n = 59], p = 0.4). The MV re-repair rates were similar (19% [n = 10] vs 22% [n = 20], p = 1). The cardiopulmonary bypass times (153 ± 42 minutes vs 172 ± 83 minutes, p = 0.07) and aortic cross-clamping times (104 ± 38 minutes versus 130 ± 71 minutes, p < 0.01) were lower in the port access group. Mortality was lower in the port access group, although not significantly (3.0% [n = 2] vs 6.0% [n = 13], p = 0.5). The rates of postoperative stroke were similar (3.0% [n = 2] vs 3.2% [n = 7], p = 1). On postoperative echocardiography, freedom from mitral regurgitation >2+ was 100% in the port access group and 99% in the redo sternotomy group. The mean hospital length of stay was 11 ± 15 days versus 14 ± 12 days (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The port access approach can be safely adopted for reoperations on the MV without compromising postoperative mortality or MV function.

Antegrade thoracic stent grafting during repair of acute Debakey type I dissection promotes distal aortic remodeling and reduces late open distal reoperation rate.

OBJECTIVE: Previously, we showed that antegrade stent grafting of the descending thoracic aorta during DeBakey type I dissection repair improves distal aortic remodeling. We assessed midterm outcomes of this reconstructive strategy compared with standard open repair. METHODS: DeBakey type I dissections (non-Marfan, nontotal arch cases only) from 2005 to 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. One hundred eighty patients underwent standard open repair (standard group), and 62 patients underwent open repair plus stenting (stented group). Open repair entailed ascending aorta plus transverse hemiarch reconstruction under circulatory arrest, with variable aortic root work. Data was prospectively maintained. RESULTS: Preoperative parameters were similar. Patients in the stented group had longer circulatory arrest time and higher utility of antegrade cerebral perfusion (P < .001). In-hospital/30-day mortality (10% vs 14%; P = .51), stroke (5% vs 8%; P = .6), and paraplegia (0% vs 1%; P = 1) were similar in the stented versus standard groups. Mean follow-up was 2.7 ± 2.3 and 2.2 ± 2.1 years. Actuarial survival in stented versus standard groups at 1 and 7 years was 86% versus 81% and 76% versus 60% (P = .5). Thoracic aorta false lumen obliteration was improved in the stented group (82% vs 39%; P < .001), along with improved freedom from open distal aortic reoperation rate (98% vs 90% at 6 years, P = .1). Endovascular distal aortic reintervention rate was higher in the stented group (18% vs 3%; P = .008), with zero mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Antegrade stent graft deployment during acute DeBakey type I dissection repair is safe method to promote distal aortic remodeling without increasing postoperative or midterm mortality. This technique provides increased freedom from open distal aortic reoperations compared with standard open repair.