Interstitial Lung Disease and Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Practical Approach for General Medicine Physicians with Focus on the Medical History

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary fibrosis comprise a wide array of inflammatory and fibrotic lung diseases which are often confusing to general medicine and pulmonary physicians alike. In addition to the myriad of clinical and radiologic nomenclature used in ILD, histopathologic descriptors may be particularly confusing, and are often extrapolated to radiologic imaging patterns which may further add to the confusion. We propose that rather than focusing on precise histologic findings, focus should be on identifying an accurate etiology of ILD through a comprehensive and detailed medical history. Histopathologic patterns from lung biopsy should not be dismissed, but are often nonspecific, and overall treatment strategy and prognosis are likely to be determined more by the specific etiology of ILD rather than any particular histologic pattern. In this review, we outline a practical approach to common ILDs, highlight important aspects in obtaining an exposure history, clarify terminology and nomenclature, and discuss six common subgroups of ILD likely to be encountered by general medicine physicians in the inpatient or outpatient setting: Smoking-related, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease-related, occupation-related, medication-induced, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Accurate diagnosis of these forms of ILD does require supplementing the medical history with results of the physical examination, autoimmune serologic testing, and chest radiographic imaging, but the importance of a comprehensive environmental, avocational, occupational, and medication-use history cannot be overstated and is likely the single most important factor responsible for achieving the best possible outcomes for patients

Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study.

UNLABELLED: Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either early (within 14 d of intubation) or late (more than 14 d after intubation). DESIGN: International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, -16 to -8; p \u3c 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, -23 to -9 d; p \u3c 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, -31 to -12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity

Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study

Objectives:. Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either “early” (within 14 d of intubation) or “late” (more than 14 d after intubation). Design:. International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. Setting:. Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States. Patients:. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Interventions:. Not applicable. Measurements and Main Results:. A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, −16 to −8; p < 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, −23 to −9 d; p < 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, −31 to −12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8−5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified. Conclusions:. COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity