Restenosis Following Bronchoscopic Airway Stenting for Complex Tracheal Stenosis

BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical patients with complex postintubation tracheal stenosis (PITS) and tracheostomy-associated tracheal stenosis (PTTS) often require airway stenting. However, the optimal approach is unknown. Identifying patients at higher risk for restenosis after stent removal may allow the treating physician to individualize the vigilance and duration of airway stenting, and help optimize outcomes. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on all patients with complex PITS and/or PTTS treated with protocolized bronchoscopic airway stenting over a consecutive 16-year period. The primary outcome analyzed was restenosis rate at 1 year after stent removal. Predictors for restenosis and factors influencing risk for death during stent therapy were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 181 subjects treated with silicone airway stenting, 128 were available for analysis of the primary outcome. Restenosis by 1 year after stent removal occurred in 58%. Independent predictors for restenosis were coexisting diabetes [odd ratio (OR)=3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-9.24; P=0.04], morbid obesity (OR=3.13, 95% CI=1.20-8.17; P=0.02), and occurrence of stent-associated complications requiring bronchoscopic management (OR=2.13, 95% CI=1.12-4.03; P=0.02). The overall mortality during the initial stenting period was 14%, and a silicone Y-stent was associated with a higher risk of death (OR=3.58, 95% CI=1.40-9.14; P=0.008). CONCLUSION: Tracheal restenosis after silicone stent therapy for complex PITS and PTTS is common and more likely to occur in patients with diabetes, morbid obesity, and frequent stent-associated complications. Mortality risk during stent therapy is not negligible, and a Y-stent should be utilized only after careful consideration. These findings may be incorporated into the approach to bronchoscopic airway stenting in these patients

Impact of a 2-Day Critical Care Ultrasound Course during Fellowship Training: A Pilot Study

Objectives. Despite the increasing utilization of point-of-care critical care ultrasonography (CCUS), standards establishing competency for its use are lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a 2-day CCUS course implementation on ultrasound-naïve critical care medicine (CCM) fellows. Methods. Prospective evaluation of the impact of a two-day CCUS course on eight CCM fellows’ attitudes, proficiency, and use of CCUS. Ultrasound competency on multiple organ systems was assessed including abdominal, pulmonary, vascular, and cardiac systems. Subjects served as self-controls and were assessed just prior to, within 1 week after, and 3 months after the course. Results. There was a significant improvement in CCM fellows’ written test scores, image acquisition ability, and pathologic image interpretation 1 week after the course and it was retained 3 months after the course. Fellows also had self-reported increased confidence and usage of CCUS applications after the course. Conclusions. Implementation of a 2-day critical care ultrasound course covering general CCUS and basic critical care echocardiography using a combination of didactics, live models, and ultrasound simulators is effective in improving critical care fellows’ proficiency and confidence with ultrasound use in both the short- and long-term settings

Racial/Ethnic Variances in COVID-19 Inoculation among Southern California Healthcare Workers.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) from minoritized communities are a critical partner in moving vaccine-hesitant populations toward vaccination, yet a significant number of these HCWs are delaying or deciding against their own COVID-19 vaccinations. Our study aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of vaccine hesitancy among racially and ethnically minoritized HCWs and to describe factors associated with vaccine non-acceptance. Analysis of a sub-sample of racially and ethnically minoritized HCWs (N = 1131), who participated in a cross-sectional study at two large Southern California medical centers, was conducted. Participants completed an online survey consisting of demographics, work setting and clinical role, influenza vaccination history, COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, personal COVID-19 exposure, diagnosis, and impact on those closest to them. While overall most HCWs were vaccinated (84%), 28% of Black, 19% of Hispanic, and 8% of Asian American HCWs were vaccine-hesitant. Age, education level, occupation, history of COVID-19, and COVID-19 related knowledge were predictive of vaccine hesitancy. We found significant variations in COVID-19 related knowledge and reasons for vaccine hesitancy among Black (governmental mistrust), Hispanic (preference for physiological immunity), and Asian-American HCWs (concern about side effects) who were vaccine-hesitant or not. Our findings highlight racial and ethnic differences in vaccine-hesitancy and barriers to vaccination among HCWs of color. This study indicates the necessity of targeted interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy that are mindful of the disparities in knowledge and access and differences between and among racial and ethnic groups

Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in Southern California: Not Just “Anti” vs. “Pro” Vaccine

In this study, we evaluated the status of and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare workers in two major hospital systems (academic and private) in Southern California. Responses were collected via an anonymous and voluntary survey from a total of 2491 participants, including nurses, physicians, other allied health professionals, and administrators. Among the 2491 participants that had been offered the vaccine at the time of the study, 2103 (84%) were vaccinated. The bulk of the participants were middle-aged college-educated White (73%), non-Hispanic women (77%), and nursing was the most represented medical occupation (35%). Political affiliation, education level, and income were shown to be significant factors associated with vaccination status. Our data suggest that the current allocation of healthcare workers into dichotomous groups such as "anti-vaccine vs. pro-vaccine" may be inadequate in accurately tailoring vaccine uptake interventions. We found that healthcare workers that have yet to receive the COVID-19 vaccine likely belong to one of four categories: the misinformed, the undecided, the uninformed, or the unconcerned. This diversity in vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers highlights the importance of targeted intervention to increase vaccine confidence. Regardless of governmental vaccine mandates, addressing the root causes contributing to vaccine hesitancy continues to be of utmost importance

AABIP evidence-informed guidelines and expert panel report for the management of indwelling pleural catheters

BACKGROUND: While the efficacy of Indwelling pleural catheters for palliation of malignant pleural effusions is supported by relatively robust evidence, there is less clarity surrounding the postinsertion management. METHODS: The Trustworthy Consensus-Based Statement approach was utilized to develop unbiased, scientifically valid guidance for the management of patients with malignant effusions treated with indwelling pleural catheters. A comprehensive electronic database search of PubMed was performed based on a priori crafted PICO questions (Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcomes paradigm). Manual searches of the literature were performed to identify additional relevant literature. Dual screenings at the title, abstract, and full-text levels were performed. Identified studies were then assessed for quality based on a combination of validated tools. Appropriateness for data pooling and formation of evidence-based recommendations was assessed using predetermined criteria. All panel members participated in development of the final recommendations utilizing the modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies were identified for formal quality assessment, all of which were deemed to have a high risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to allow for data pooling and formation of any evidence-based recommendations. Panel consensus resulted in 11 ungraded consensus-based recommendations. CONCLUSION: This manuscript was developed to provide clinicians with guidance on the management of patients with indwelling pleural catheters placed for palliation of malignant pleural effusions. Through a systematic and rigorous process, management suggestions were developed based on the best available evidence with augmentation by expert opinion when necessary. In addition, these guidelines highlight important gaps in knowledge which require further study

Key highlights From the American association for bronchology and interventional pulmonology evidence-informed guidelines and expert panel report for the management of indwelling pleural catheters

Malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) are associated with reduced survival and contribute to significant morbidity and burden on the health-care system. Although there are numerous MPE management strategies, such as pleurodesis and intermittent drainage via thoracentesis, indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) have become an effective tool in both managing symptoms and reducing the need for hospitalization in the end-stages of life. The American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (AABIP) recently had society-endorsed guidelines “AABIP Evidence-Informed Guidelines and Expert Panel Report for the Management of Indwelling Pleural Catheters”1 published in the Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology to address issues relevant to the postinsertion management of IPCs in MPEs.1 This commentary summarizes many of the key recommendations from the guidelines in a frequently-asked-questions format