Prospective randomized study comparing the Teleflex Medical SaphLITE Retractor to the Ethicon CardioVations Clearglide Endoscopic System

BACKGROUND: Several minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting techniques have been developed to reduce morbidities associated with coronary artery bypass grafting. This prospective, randomized study was designed to compare two commonly used minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting techniques, the SaphLITE Retractor System (Teleflex Medical) and the Clearglide Endoscopic Vessel Harvesting System (Ethicon CardioVations, Inc.). METHODS: Between January 2003 and March 2004, a total of 200 patients scheduled for primary, nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting, with or without concomitant procedures were randomized into two groups: SaphLITE (n = 100) and Clearglide (n = 100). Pre-, intra- and postoperative data was collected and subjected to statistical analysis. Randomization provided homogenous groups with respect to preoperative risk factors. RESULTS: Harvest location for the SaphLITE group was thigh (n = 40), lower leg (n = 5) and both lower leg and thigh (n = 55). The location of harvest for the Clearglide group was thigh (n = 3), lower leg (n = 16) and both lower leg and thigh (n = 81). The mean incision length was 3.6 cm (range, 2–6) in the SaphLITE group versus 2.1 cm (range, 1–4) in the Clearglide group (p < 0.05). The total incision length was 12.9 cm versus 8.9 (p < 0.05) in the SaphLITE and Clearglide groups. Conversion to the open technique occurred in 5 SaphLITE patients and 7 Clearglide patients. Intraoperative leg exploration for bleeding occurred in two of the Clearglide patients and none of the SaphLITE patients. Post-operative complications specifically related to minimally invasive harvesting technique, including a two-week post-discharge visit, were not statistically different between the groups. CONCLUSION: The saphenous vein can be safely harvested utilizing the SaphLITE and Clearglide systems. While the Clearglide system allows for fewer incisions (number and length) and less harvest time, these benefits may be outweighed by the increased cost of the Clearglide system compared to the SaphLITE retractor

Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial

Background: Long-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods: In this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6&nbsp;months after the enrollment. Results: Among 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide &lt; 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity &lt; 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47–77] of predicted vs. 80% [71–88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53–70] vs. 80 [70–83], p = 0.01). Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6&nbsp;months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 202

The PROVENT-C19 registry: A study protocol for international multicenter SIAARTI registry on the use of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS

Background The worldwide use of prone position (PP) for invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 is progressively increasing from the first pandemic wave in everyday clinical practice. Among the suggested treatments for the management of ARDS patients, PP was recommended in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 guidelines as an adjuvant therapy for improving ventilation. In patients with severe classical ARDS, some authors reported that early application of prolonged PP sessions significantly decreases 28-day and 90-day mortality. Methods and analysis Since January 2021, the COVID19 Veneto ICU Network research group has developed and implemented nationally and internationally the "PROVENT-C19 Registry", endorsed by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care. . .'(SIAARTI). The PROVENT-C19 Registry wishes to describe 1. The real clinical practice on the use of PP in COVID-19 patients during the pandemic at a National and International level; and 2. Potential baseline and clinical characteristics that identify subpopulations of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 that may improve daily from PP therapy. This web-based registry will provide relevant information on how the database research tools may improve our daily clinical practice. Conclusions This multicenter, prospective registry is the first to identify and characterize the role of PP on clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients. In recent years, data emerging from large registries have been increasingly used to provide real-world evidence on the effectiveness, quality, and safety of a clinical intervention. Indeed observation-based registries could be effective tools aimed at identifying specific clusters of patients within a large study population with widely heterogeneous clinical characteristics. Copyright