The Use of Bronchoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST/AABIP Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has swept the globe and is causing significant morbidity and mortality. Given that the virus is transmitted via droplets, open airway procedures such as bronchoscopy pose a significant risk to health-care workers (HCWs). The goal of this guideline was to examine the current evidence on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the optimal protection of patients and HCWs. RESEARCH QUESTION: ▪▪▪ STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format that addressed specific topics on bronchoscopy related to COVID-19 infection and transmission. MEDLINE (via PubMed) was systematically searched for relevant literature and references were screened for inclusion. Validated evaluation tools were used to assess the quality of studies and to grade the level of evidence to support each recommendation. When evidence did not exist, suggestions were developed based on consensus using the modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The systematic review and critical analysis of the literature based on six PICO questions resulted in six statements: one evidence-based graded recommendation and 5 ungraded consensus-based statements. INTERPRETATION: The evidence on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic is sparse. To maximize protection of patients and HCWs, bronchoscopy should be used sparingly in the evaluation and management of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections. In an area where community transmission of COVID-19 infection is present, bronchoscopy should be deferred for nonurgent indications, and if necessary to perform, HCWs should wear personal protective equipment while performing the procedure even on asymptomatic patients

Cell-free DNA methylation analysis as a marker of malignancy in pleural fluid

Abstract Diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is made by cytological examination of pleural fluid or histological examination of pleural tissue from biopsy. Unfortunately, detection of malignancy using cytology has an overall sensitivity of 50%, and is dependent upon tumor load, volume of fluid assessed, and cytopathologist experience. The diagnostic yield of pleural fluid cytology is also compromised by low abundance of tumor cells or when morphology is obscured by inflammation or reactive mesothelial cells. A reliable molecular marker that may complement fluid cytology for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion is needed. The purpose of this study was to establish a molecular diagnostic approach based on pleural effusion cell-free DNA methylation analysis for the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion and benign pleural effusion. This was a blind, prospective case–control biomarker study. We recruited 104 patients with pleural effusion for the study. We collected pleural fluid from patients with: MPE (n = 48), indeterminate pleural effusion in subjects with known malignancy or IPE (n = 28), and benign PE (n = 28), and performed the Sentinel-MPE liquid biopsy assay. The methylation level of Sentinel-MPE was markedly higher in the MPE samples compared to BPE control samples (p < 0.0001) and the same tendency was observed relative to IPE (p = 0.004). We also noted that the methylation signal was significantly higher in IPE relative to BPE (p < 0.001). We also assessed the diagnostic efficiency of the Sentinel-MPE test by performing receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC). For the ROC analysis we combined the malignant and indeterminate pleural effusion groups (n = 76) and compared against the benign group (n = 28). The detection sensitivity and specificity of the Sentinel-MPE test was high (AUC = 0.912). The Sentinel-MPE appears to have better performance characteristics than cytology analysis. However, combining Sentinel-MPE with cytology analysis could be an even more effective approach for the diagnosis of MPE. The Sentinel-MPE test can discriminate between BPE and MPE. The Sentinel-MPE liquid biopsy test can detect aberrant DNA in several different tumor types. The Sentinel-MPE test can be a complementary tool to cytology in the diagnosis of MPE

Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

Abstract Background Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone’s clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone. Methods A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient’s age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission. Results After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups. Conclusion Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality

Additional file 1 of Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

Additional file 1. Outcome definition (s)

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P  =   .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P  < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P  < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P  < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population