A training programme on basic mechanical ventilation for novel trainees during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sela Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7377745 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A training programme on basic mechanical ventilation for novel trainees during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Sela Yarden Y Weiniger Carolyn F CF Arnon Maya M Kassif Orly Bisker OB Sinai Isaac Brzezinski IB Shalev Shahar S Lichter Yael Y Barak Orly O Matot Idit I Matzkin Haim H Pur-Eisenberg Netta N Capua Tali T
British journal of anaesthesia 20200723 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeLimited mechanical ventilators (MV) during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hypoxemic patients, which has not been studied well. We aimed to assess the association of NIV versus MV with mortality and morbidity during respiratory intervention among hypoxemic patients admitted with COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multi-center cohort study across 5 hospitals during March-April 2020. Outcomes included mortality, severe COVID-19-related symptoms, time to discharge, and final oxygen saturation (SpO2) at the conclusion of the respiratory intervention. Multivariable regression of outcomes was conducted in all hypoxemic participants, 4 subgroups, and propensity-matched analysis.ResultsOf 2381 participants with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, 688 were included in the study who were hypoxemic upon initiation of respiratory intervention. During the study period, 299 participants died (43%), 163 were admitted to the ICU (24%), and 121 experienced severe COVID-19-related symptoms (18%). Participants on MV had increased mortality than those on NIV (128/154 [83%] versus 171/534 [32%], OR = 30, 95% CI 16-60) with a mean survival of 6 versus 15 days, respectively. The MV group experienced more severe COVID-19-related symptoms [55/154 (36%) versus 66/534 (12%), OR = 4.3, 95% CI 2.7-6.8], longer time to discharge (mean 17 versus 7.1 days), and lower final SpO2 (92 versus 94%). Across all subgroups and propensity-matched analysis, MV was associated with a greater OR of death than NIV.ConclusionsNIV was associated with lower respiratory intervention mortality and morbidity than MV. However, findings may be liable to unmeasured confounding and further study from randomized controlled trials is needed to definitively determine the role of NIV in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8179090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify potential predictors for invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.MethodsThis study retrospectively analyzes data of 516 patients with confirmed COVID-19, who were categorized into three groups based on which mechanical ventilation method was used during the hospitalization period.ResultsAmong 516 confirmed cases with COVID-19, 446 patients did not receive mechanical ventilation, 38 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and 32 received non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV). The median age of the included patients was 61 years old (interquartile range, 52-69). A total of 432 patients had one or more coexisting illnesses. The main clinical symptoms included fever (79.46%), dry cough (66.47%) and shortness of breath (46.90%). IMV and NIMV patients included more men, more coexisting illnesses and received more medication. Patients in the IMV group and NIMV had higher leukocyte and neutrophil count, lower lymphocyte count, higher aspartate aminotransferase (AST), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) and D-dimer levels and lower albumin (ALB) level. The univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and LDH had a predictive role as indicators for IMV, and the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and PCT had a predictive role as indicators for NIMV. The area under the curve (AUC) of use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and LDH was 0.885 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.838-0.933, p < 0.0001), which provided the specificity and sensitivity 77.7% and 90.9%, respectively. AUC of the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and PCT for NIMV was 0.888 (95% CI 0.825-0.952, p < 0.0001), which provided the specificity and sensitivity 70.3% and 96.4%, respectively.ConclusionGlucocorticoid, increased neutrophil and LDH were predictive indicators for IMV, whereas glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil and PCT were predictive indicators for NIMV. In addition, the above-mentioned mediators had the most predictive meaning for mechanical ventilation when combined.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
| S-EPMC7570781 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7328308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease that can rapidly progress into acute respiratory failure and death. Timely identification of these patients is crucial for a proper administration of health-care resources.ObjectiveTo develop a predictive score that estimates the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) among patients with COVID-19.Study designRetrospective cohort study of 401 COVID-19 patients diagnosed from March 12, to August 10, 2020. The score development cohort comprised 211 patients (52.62% of total sample) whereas the validation cohort included 190 patients (47.38% of total sample). We divided participants according to the need of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and looked for potential predictive variables.ResultsWe developed two predictive scores, one based on Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and the other one on the Neutrophil/Lymphocyte ratio (NLR), using the following variables: respiratory rate, SpO2/FiO2 ratio and lactic dehydrogenase (LDH). The area under the curve (AUC) in the development cohort was 0.877 (0.823-0.931) using the NLR based score and 0.891 (0.843-0.939) using the IL-6 based score. When compared with other similar scores developed for the prediction of adverse outcomes in COVID-19, the COVID-IRS scores proved to be superior in the prediction of IMV.ConclusionThe COVID-IRS scores accurately predict the need for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients using readily available variables taken upon admission. More studies testing the applicability of COVID-IRS in other centers and populations, as well as its performance as a triage tool for COVID-19 patients are needed.
| S-EPMC8021150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 outbreak has led to 80,409 diagnosed cases and 3,012 deaths in mainland China based on the data released on March 4, 2020. Approximately 3.2% of patients with COVID-19 required intubation and invasive ventilation at some point in the disease course. Providing best practices regarding intubation and ventilation for an overwhelming number of patients with COVID-19 amid an enhanced risk of cross-infection is a daunting undertaking. The authors presented the experience of caring for the critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan. It is extremely important to follow strict self-protection precautions. Timely, but not premature, intubation is crucial to counter a progressively enlarging oxygen debt despite high-flow oxygen therapy and bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation. Thorough preparation, satisfactory preoxygenation, modified rapid sequence induction, and rapid intubation using a video laryngoscope are widely used intubation strategies in Wuhan. Lung-protective ventilation, prone position ventilation, and adequate sedation and analgesia are essential components of ventilation management.
| S-EPMC7155908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes.MethodProspective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min.ResultsForty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001).ConclusionAmong critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.
| S-EPMC8442133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To review the impact of COVID-19 on postgraduate paediatric training, a 10-question online survey was designed to evaluate trainees' training opportunities. 56 trainees working at a single centre, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, completed the survey. The majority of trainees felt that COVID-19 had affected their training. Trainees wanted to become involved in Quality Improvement Programs. Face-to-face teaching was still favourable but web-based teaching methods were preferred. Novel online, Worked Based Assessment clinics were well received. COVID-19 has affected traditional learning opportunities but offered a new positive range of digital solutions to give and store educational material.
| S-EPMC7493069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] has dislocated clinical services and postgraduate training. To better understand and to document these impacts, we contacted anaesthesia trainees and trainers across six continents and collated their experiences during the pandemic. All aspects of training programmes have been affected. Trainees report that reduced caseload, sub-specialty experience, and supervised procedures are impairing learning. Cancelled educational activities, postponed examinations, and altered rotations threaten progression through training. Job prospects and international opportunities are downgraded. Work-related anxieties about provision of personal protective equipment, and risks to self and to colleagues are superimposed on concerns for family and friends and domestic disruption. These seismic changes have had consequences for well-being and mental health. In response, anaesthetists have developed innovations in teaching and trainee support. New technologies support trainer-trainee interactions, with a focus on e-learning. National training bodies and medical regulators that specify training and oversee assessment of trainees and their progression have provided flexibility in their requirements. Within anaesthesia departments, support transcends grades and job titles with lessons for the future. Attention to wellness, awareness of mental health issues and multimodal support can attenuate but not eliminate trainee distress.
| S-EPMC7377727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to evaluate how the obstetrics and gynaecology residency program and trainees have been affected by the Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic in Europe.Study designThis study is a cross-sectional explorative survey using an online questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised of 40 questions that were subdivided into 4 subjects; workload, specialist training aspects in obstetrics and gynaecology, health and safety of the trainee and women's health and maternal health issues. Inclusion criteria consisted of being a trainee in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ObGyn) at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe or trainees who had recently finished their training during the time of the outbreak. Taking part in the survey was voluntary. The questionnaire was shared on the website of the European Network for Trainees in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ENTOG), ENTOG social media, in the ENTOG-newsletter and through the national representatives of ENTOG.Results110 ObGyn trainees from 25 different countries responded to the questionnaire. Almost all trainees (95 %, N = 105) reported an effect on their training due to COVID-19 pandemic. Training was interrupted in 21 % of cases (n = 23). Trainees observed a decrease in educational activities or lectures and a decrease in number of patients. The possibility of training surgical skills decreased, because 67 % (N = 74) trainees reported that surgeries were cancelled. Trainees expressed concerns about reaching the goals of their ObGyn specialist training in 60 % (n = 66) of cases. A decrease in workload was experienced during the first COVID-19 wave in Europe by 60 % (n = 66) of trainees. On average these trainees worked 33 % less hours compared to a normal workweek. Although 22 % (n = 24) were expected to be available continuously for 24 h a day and 7 days a week for unscheduled duties, 15 % (n = 16) were deployed to work on special COVID-units. Concerning preparation, 45 % of the trainees (n = 50) had not received any training for treating COVID-positive patients. Trainees claimed to have enough personal protective equipment (PPE), although problems were reported. Any form of psychosocial support was arranged for 65 % of trainees (n = 71) by the hospital or department. The results of the survey suggest that obstetric care was not affected much (92 % (n = 102) of the respondents said at least necessary care continued) while patients in need for reproductive medicine were affected the most; out of the 110 departments 58 % (n = 60) were closed and 35 % (n = 36) reduced their activities. Access to family planning and benign gynaecology were also significantly reduced; 77 % and 87 % respectively of the departments were less accessible or only open to emergency cases.ConclusionCOVID-19 pandemic has had a tremendous effect on the ObGyn training in Europe. Exposure to learning opportunities, surgeries and teaching has been decreased during the outbreak and may result in a decrease in quality of care provided to women in the future if impairment of training is not recovered.
| S-EPMC8035806 | biostudies-literature