PRONE VENTILATION IN INTUBATED COVID-19 PATIENTS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION: Prone ventilation is a well-established strategy in patients with severe ARDS as it has been shown to improve survival and mortality. However, in intubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, the data are limited, with no substantial evidence supporting its use. This meta-analysis is the first to examine the mortality benefit of prone ventilation in intubated COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic search according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted in January 2022 for published studies assessing the mortality benefit of prone ventilation in intubated COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-seven studies were identified. Of those, five studies met the inclusion criteria studies were included. The total number of patients included in the studies was 4247 patients. In four studies, ARDS prevalence was reported. The prone group had a higher prevalence of severe ARDS rates than the supine group. No significant difference was found between prone or supine groups in ICU mortality (OR: 1.39; 95%CI: 0.80-2.43; p=0.24). Regarding overall mortality, No difference was detected between the prone or the supine groups (OR: 1.04; 95%CI: 0.57-1.87; p = 0.9), with significant heterogeneity (I2= 93; p \u3c 0.001). The length of hospital stay (LOS) was reported in two studies. Our analysis showed that LOS did not differ between the prone and supine groups (SMD: 0.77; 95%CI: -0.33-1.86; p=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Prone ventilation in intubated COVID-19 patients does not offer a mortality benefit. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm this finding and clarify whether specific subpopulations may benefit from prone ventilation

Prone Vs. Supine Position Ventilation in Intubated COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Whether prone positioning of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia has benefits over supine positioning is not clear. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine whether prone versus supine positioning during ventilation resulted in different outcomes for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for prospective and retrospective studies up through April 2023. We included studies that compared outcomes of patients with COVID-19 after ventilation in prone and supine positions. The primary outcomes were three mortality measures: hospital, overall, and intensive care unit (ICU). Secondary outcomes were mechanical ventilation days, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and hospital length of stay. We conducted risk of bias analysis and used meta-analysis software to analyze results. Mean difference (MD) was used for continuous data, and odds ratio (OR) was used for dichotomous data, both with 95% CIs. Significant heterogeneity (I(2)) was considered if I(2) was \u3e50%. A statistically significant result was considered if the p-value was \u3c0.05. Of 1787 articles identified, 93 were retrieved, and seven retrospective cohort studies encompassing 5216 patients with COVID-19 were analyzed. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the prone group (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.43-3.43; p=0.0004). No statistically significant difference was observed between prone and supine groups for hospital mortality (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.66-1.37; p=0.78) or overall mortality (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.72-1.64; p=0.71). Studies that analyzed primary outcomes had significant heterogeneity. Hospital length of stay was significantly higher in the prone than in the supine group (MD, 6.06; 95 % CI, 3.15-8.97; p\u3c0.0001). ICU length of stay and days of mechanical ventilation did not differ between the two groups. In conclusion, mechanical ventilation with prone positioning for all patients with COVID-19 pneumonia may not provide a mortality benefit over supine positioning

Characteristics of Organ Donors Who Died From Suicide by Hanging in Australia and New Zealand: A Retrospective Study

Background and objective: The annual incidence of suicide by hanging in Australia and New Zealand has increased in the past decade, and a significant number of these individuals are becoming organ donors. The rates of organ donation following deaths from hanging is unknown and the characteristics of this cohort of donors have not been described in the literature. In light of this, we aimed to examine the trends in organ donation from individuals who had died from hanging, based on the solid organ donor data from the Australia and New Zealand Organ Donation (ANZOD) Registry. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study that analyzed the ANZOD Registry donor data (2006-2015) to describe the characteristics of solid organ donors who had died by hanging (post-hanging group); these characteristics were compared to those of individuals who died by all other causes (non-hanging group). Results: During the study period, the number and proportion of donors who died by suicide from hanging increased. Of the 4,024 consented organ donors, 226 had died by hanging and 3,798 had died from other causes. The probability that an individual who died by hanging would become an organ donor increased from 0.5 to 3%. Compared to donors who died by all other causes, post-hanging donors were younger (median age of 30 vs. 50 years), with fewer comorbidities, and a higher incidence of smoking. There was no significant difference in the proportion of those who indicated a prior intent to donate organs between post-hanging (34%) and non-hanging donors (38%). A higher proportion of post-hanging donors donated via the donation after the circulatory death pathway (36.3%) than non-hanging donors (24.2%). Individuals in the post-hanging cohort donated an average of 4.19 organs compared to 3.62 in the non-hanging cohort. Conclusion: We believe the findings of this retrospective analysis will help inform clinical decision-making regarding organ donation, including the best approaches to obtaining donation consent. Our findings will help physicians provide care to patients and to families of individuals in this challenging group, where organ donation potential is high. Further investigations are required to determine which aspects of healthcare influence the donation rates in individuals who have died by hanging and the outcomes related to transplanted organs

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Repair Complicated By Intraoperative Right Coronary Artery Occlusion

Introduction: Iatrogenic injury of coronary arteries can complicate mitral valve replacement or repair. Direct injury to the circumflex coronary artery can occur due to the proximity of these vessels to the mitral valve. Acute injury of the right coronary artery on the other hand is seen during tricuspid valve repairs and is almost never seen with mitral valve surgery given its distance from the mitral valve. Case: We describe an interesting case of minimally invasive mitral valve repair which was complicated by intraoperative right coronary artery occlusion. It was managed by angiography and percutaneous intervention. Conclusion: While myocardial infarctions are rare in patients undergoing valvular surgery with normal preoperative coronary angiography, it must be suspected in patients with difficulty weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass and sudden reductions in cardiac function. In minimally invasive procedures with thoracotomy incisions, intraoperative angiography can be an indispensable tool. Swift intervention for revascularization and the use of postoperative cardiac assist devices can lead to favorable outcomes.https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/sarcd2021/1002/thumbnail.jp

Effect of Intubation Timing on the Outcome of Patients With Severe Respiratory Distress Secondary to COVID-19 Pneumonia.

Background: The optimal timing of intubation for critically ill patients with severe respiratory illness remains controversial among healthcare providers. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised even more questions about when to implement this life-saving therapy. While one group of providers prefers early intubation for patients with respiratory distress because these patients may deteriorate rapidly without it, other providers believe that intubation should be delayed or avoided because of its associated risks including worse outcomes. Research question: Our objective was to assess whether the timing of intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia was associated with differences in mortality or other outcomes. Study design and methods: This was a single-center retrospective observational cohort study. We analyzed outcomes of patients who were intubated secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia between March 13, 2020, and December 12, 2020, at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. Patients were categorized into two groups: early intubated (intubated within 24 hours of the onset of severe respiratory distress) and late intubated (intubated after 24 hours of the onset of severe respiratory distress). Demographics, comorbidities, respiratory rate oxygenation (ROX) index, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and treatment received were compared between groups. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and discharge disposition. Post hoc and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed. Results: A total of 110 patients were included: 55 early intubated and 55 late intubated. We did not observe a significant difference in overall mortality between the early intubated (43%) and the late intubated groups (53%) (p = 0.34). There was no statistically significant difference in patients\u27 baseline characteristics including SOFA scores (the early intubation group had a mean score of 7.5 compared to 6.7 in the late intubation group). Based on the ROX index, the early intubation group had significantly more patients with a reduced risk of intubation (45%) than the late group (27%) (p = 0.029). The early intubation group was treated with a high-flow nasal cannula at a significantly lower rate (47%) than the late intubation group (83%) (p \u3c 0.001). Significant differences in patient baseline characteristics, treatment received, and other outcomes were not observed. Post hoc analysis adjusting for SOFA score between 0 and 9 revealed significantly higher mortality in the late intubation group (49%) than in the early intubation group (26%) (p = 0.03). Patients in the 0 to 9 SOFA group who were intubated later had 2.7 times the odds of dying during hospital admission compared to patients who were intubated early (CI, 1.09-6.67). Interpretation: The timing of intubation for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly associated with overall mortality or other patient outcomes. However, within the subgroup of patients with SOFA scores of 9 or lower at the time of intubation, patients intubated after 24 hours of the onset of respiratory distress had a higher risk of death than those who were intubated within 24 hours of respiratory distress. Thus, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who are not at a high level of organ dysfunction may benefit from early mechanical ventilation

The Burnout Epidemic Within A Viral Pandemic: Impact of a Wellness Initiative

Background: Anesthesiologists are at high risk of developing burnout, a condition which can lead to many deleterious effects for the physician, and far-reaching effects on their patients and hospital systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented new challenges that have further exacerbated the risk of burnout in anesthesiologists. It is critical to develop effective strategies to promote well-being and decrease burnout for physicians in this specialty. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate the impact of a Physician Well-Being Initiative on distress and well-being in anesthesiologists. It was hypothesized that the wellness intervention would promote an improvement in well-being scores. Methods: The Physician Well-Being Initiative was launched in August 2019 in the Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. The Physician Well-Being Initiative was designed to address several of the key factors that improve physician wellness, including 1) a sense of autonomy; 2) positive view of leadership; and 3) flexible schedule opportunities. To assess the impact of the Physician Well-Being Initiative on the well-being and distress scores of participating anesthesiologists, the physicians were emailed the validated Well-Being Index survey at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months. The Well-Being Index evaluates multiple items of distress in the healthcare setting. The sample size was limited to the 54 anesthesiologists at Henry Ford Hospital. Results: Forty-four of the 54 anesthesiologists completed the baseline questionnaire. A total of 44 physicians answered the questionnaire at baseline, with more male than female physicians (35 males and 7 females) and the majority (17/44) in practice for 5-10 years. Thirty-two physicians completed the survey at 3 and 6 months, and 31 physicians at 12 months after the launch of the Physician Well-Being Initiative. Twenty-one physicians completed the questionnaire at all 4 time points. Although the COVID-19 pandemic started shortly after the 6-month surveys were submitted, results indicated that there was a 0.05 decrease in the Well-Being Index sum score for every 1-month of time (coefficient -0.05, 95% CI -0.01, -0.08, P = 0.013). This study shows that, with the wellness initiative in place, the department was able to maintain and potentially even reduce physician distress despite the concurrent onset of the pandemic. Conclusions: Following the launch of a sustained wellness initiative, this study demonstrates that physician wellness improved with time. This suggests that it takes time for a wellness initiative to have an effect on well-being and distress in anesthesiologists

The Ethics of Surgery at End of Life

The role of the anesthesiologist cannot be understated when it comes to ethical decision making, especially at end of life. To best serve patients within the limits of the law, anesthesiologists must arm themselves with an understanding of how the laws surrounding ethical decision-making impact daily practices. It is also important to know what rights and duties a patient or surrogate has in the decision-making process. With proper understanding of their responsibilities and the available tools, anesthesiologists can fulfill their roles as leaders and advocates for their patients as approaches to ethical decision-making at the end of life evolve

Comparison of static and rolling logistic regression models on predicting invasive mechanical ventilation or death from COVID-19-A retrospective, multicentre study

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 virus has undergone mutations, and the introduction of vaccines and effective treatments have changed its clinical severity. We hypothesized that models that evolve may better predict invasive mechanical ventilation or death than do static models. METHODS: This retrospective study of adult patients with COVID-19 from six Michigan hospitals analysed 20 demographic, comorbid, vital sign and laboratory factors, one derived factor and nine factors representing changes in vital signs or laboratory values with time for their ability to predict death or invasive mechanical ventilation within the next 4, 8 or 24 h. Static logistic regression was constructed on the initial 300 patients and tested on the remaining 6741 patients. Rolling logistic regression was similarly constructed on the initial 300 patients, but then new patients were added, and older patients removed. Each new construction model was subsequently tested on the next patient. Static and rolling models were compared with receiver operator characteristic and precision-recall curves. RESULTS: Of the 7041 patients, 534 (7.6%) required invasive mechanical ventilation or died within 14 days of arrival. Rolling models improved discrimination (0.865 ± 0.010, 0.856 ± 0.007 and 0.843 ± 0.005 for the 4, 8 and 24-h models, respectively; all p \u3c 0.001 compared with the static logistic regressions with 0.827 ± 0.011, 0.794 ± 0.012 and 0.735 ± 0.012, respectively). Similarly, the areas under the precision-recall curves improved from 0.006, 0.010 and 0.021 with the static models to 0.030, 0.045 and 0.076 for the 4-, 8- and 24-h rolling models, respectively, all p \u3c 0.001. CONCLUSION: Rolling models with contemporaneous data maintained better metrics of performance than static models, which used older data

Incorporating Perioperative Point-of-Care Ultrasound as Part of the Anesthesia Residency Curriculum

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to establish whether implementing a curriculum of perioperative point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) of the heart and lungs for current in-training anesthesia residents during their required month of cardiac anesthesia was feasible and whether an evaluation tool would demonstrate improvement in the residents\u27 baseline knowledge of POCUS. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, cohort, and observational study. SETTING: A tertiary-care, university-affiliated hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 16 anesthesia residents on their third postgraduate training year during their required cardiac anesthesia rotation. INTERVENTIONS: The implementation of a curriculum to educate anesthesia residents in perioperative POCUS of the heart and lungs on patients undergoing elective cardiothoracic procedures that included both theoretical and practical approaches. A 21-question, multiple-choice, electronic-generated test was developed to gauge performance improvement from before ( pretest ) to after ( posttest ) the 4-week period. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 16 residents, 13 (81.3%) showed improved scores between the pretest and posttest periods after the 4-week rotation. The difference between pretest and posttest mean score was 5 (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that integrating a curriculum dedicated to perioperative POCUS of the heart and lungs as part of the goals and objectives during the rotation of cardiac anesthesia is feasible and that anesthesia residents who received the training proposed by the authors improved their cognitive and technical skills

The Burnout Epidemic Within A Viral Pandemic: Impact of a Wellness Initiative

Background: Anesthesiologists are at high risk of developing burnout, a condition which can lead to many deleterious effects for the physician, and far-reaching effects on their patients and hospital systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented new challenges that have further exacerbated the risk of burnout in anesthesiologists. It is critical to develop effective strategies to promote well-being and decrease burnout for physicians in this specialty. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate the impact of a Physician Well-Being Initiative on distress and well-being in anesthesiologists. It was hypothesized that the wellness intervention would promote an improvement in well-being scores. Methods: The Physician Well-Being Initiative was launched in August 2019 in the Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Management and Perioperative Medicine at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. The Physician Well-Being Initiative was designed to address several of the key factors that improve physician wellness, including 1) a sense of autonomy; 2) positive view of leadership; and 3) flexible schedule opportunities. To assess the impact of the Physician Well-Being Initiative on the well-being and distress scores of participating anesthesiologists, the physicians were emailed the validated Well-Being Index survey at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months. The Well-Being Index evaluates multiple items of distress in the healthcare setting. The sample size was limited to the 54 anesthesiologists at Henry Ford Hospital. Results: Forty-four of the 54 anesthesiologists completed the baseline questionnaire. A total of 44 physicians answered the questionnaire at baseline, with more male than female physicians (35 males and 7 females) and the majority (17/44) in practice for 5-10 years. Thirty-two physicians completed the survey at 3 and 6 months, and 31 physicians at 12 months after the launch of the Physician Well-Being Initiative. Twenty-one physicians completed the questionnaire at all 4 time points. Although the COVID-19 pandemic started shortly after the 6-month surveys were submitted, results indicated that there was a 0.05 decrease in the Well-Being Index sum score for every 1-month of time (coefficient -0.05, 95% CI -0.01, -0.08, P = 0.013). This study shows that, with the wellness initiative in place, the department was able to maintain and potentially even reduce physician distress despite the concurrent onset of the pandemic. Conclusions: Following the launch of a sustained wellness initiative, this study demonstrates that physician wellness improved with time. This suggests that it takes time for a wellness initiative to have an effect on well-being and distress in anesthesiologists