Background and Aims

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread worldwide in 2020, the number of patients requiring intensive care and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) has increased rapidly. During the pandemic, early recommendations suggested that tracheostomy should be postponed, as the potential benefits were not certain to exceed the risk of viral transmission to healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome, in terms of patient and clinical characteristics, outcomes, and complications, by comparing between early and late tracheostomy.

Methods

A multicenter, retrospective observational study was conducted in Jönköping County, Sweden. Between 14 March 2020 and 13 March 2021, 117 patients were included. All patients ≥18 years of age with confirmed COVID-19, who underwent tracheostomy were divided into two groups based on the timing of the procedure (≤/>7 days). Outcomes including the time on IMV, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and mortality 30 days after ICU admission, as well as complications due to tracheostomy were compared between the groups.

Results

Early tracheostomy (<7 days, n = 56) was associated with a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation (7 [12], p = 0.001) as well as a shorter median ICU stay (8 [14], p = 0.001). The most frequent complication of tracheostomy was minor bleeding. With the exception of a higher rate of obesity in the group receiving late tracheostomy, the patient characteristics were similar between the groups.

Conclusion

This study showed that early tracheostomy was safe and associated with a shorter time on IMV as well as a shorter ICU length of stay, implicating possible clinical benefits in critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, it is necessary to verify these findings in a randomized controlled trial.

Background The risk of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related complications in patients hospitalized with solid tumors remains unclear. Existing studies are limited by single-center, outpatient designs and include heterogenous patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study was designed and included adult patients with solid organ cancers who were admitted to a general medicine ward or intensive care unit and received a PICC. Data were collected from November 2013 to December 2019 at 50 Michigan hospitals. Major complications were defined as central line-associated bloodstream infection, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and catheter occlusion. Hospital variation in PICC use and outcomes was examined. Results Data included 3235 hospitalized patients with solid tumors who had PICCs placed for 51,047 catheter days. Most catheters were double-lumen devices (57.0%). Notably, 17.5% of patients had another central venous catheter at the time of PICC insertion. The most common indications for PICC use were antibiotics (34.5%) and difficult access or blood draws (21.6%); chemotherapy was the primary indication in only 15.7% of patients. A major PICC-related complication occurred in 491 patients (15.2%); catheter occlusion was the most prevalent complication (n = 322; 10.0%) followed by deep vein thrombosis (n = 116; 3.6%), central line-associated bloodstream infection (n = 82; 2.5%), and pulmonary embolism (n = 20; 0.6%). Significant variation in indications for PICC use, device characteristics, and frequency of major complications across hospitals was observed (p &lt; .001). Conclusions PICCs were associated with significant complications in hospitalized patients who had solid malignancies and were often used for reasons other than chemotherapy. Policies and guidance for the appropriate use of PICCs in oncologic patients appear necessary. Lay summary Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are devices placed in peripheral veins to deliver medication to large veins near the heart. PICCs are used frequently in oncology. The objective of this report was to describe PICC-associated complications in hospitalized patients with solid tumors. This study was performed across 50 Michigan hospitals and included 3235 patients with solid tumor cancers and who had a PICC. Overall, 15.2% of patients experienced a complication, including central line-associated bloodstream infections, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or catheter occlusion. Complication rates varied across hospitals. PICCs are associated with substantial complications in hospitalized patients with solid tumors.

Background

The effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rates is not established. The aim of this trial was to investigate if a protocol for awake prone positioning reduces the rate of endotracheal intubation compared with standard care among patients with moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation for respiratory support and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 20 kPa were randomly assigned to a protocol targeting 16 h prone positioning per day or standard care. The primary endpoint was intubation within 30 days. Secondary endpoints included duration of awake prone positioning, 30-day mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, use of noninvasive ventilation, organ support and adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to futility.

Results

Of 141 patients assessed for eligibility, 75 were randomized of whom 39 were allocated to the control group and 36 to the prone group. Within 30 days after enrollment, 13 patients (33%) were intubated in the control group versus 12 patients (33%) in the prone group (HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.46–2.21), P = 0.99). Median prone duration was 3.4 h [IQR 1.8–8.4] in the control group compared with 9.0 h per day [IQR 4.4–10.6] in the prone group (P = 0.014). Nine patients (23%) in the control group had pressure sores compared with two patients (6%) in the prone group (difference − 18% (95% CI − 2 to − 33%); P = 0.032). There were no other differences in secondary outcomes between groups.

Conclusions

The implemented protocol for awake prone positioning increased duration of prone positioning, but did not reduce the rate of intubation in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared to standard care.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has put an exceptional strain on intensive care units worldwide. During the first year, the survival of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure appears to have improved. We aimed to describe the mortality rates, management characteristics and two pandemic waves during the first year at three non-academic rural intensive care units in Sweden. Methods We retrospectively analysed all cases of COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units in Region Jonkoping County during 1 year. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Results Between 14th March 2020 and 13th March 2021, 264 patients were admitted to undergo intensive care with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The 30-day mortality rate after the initial intensive care admission was 12.9%, and this rate remained unchanged during both pandemic waves. However, we found several distinct differences between the two pandemic waves, including an increase in the use of high-flow nasal oxygen but a decrease in invasive mechanical ventilation use, biochemical markers of inflammation, continuous renal replacement therapy and length of stay in the intensive care unit. Conclusion Our study showed that critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Sweden have a low 30-day mortality rate which compares well with results published from academic centres and national cohorts throughout Scandinavia. During the second pandemic wave, the proportion of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and continuous renal replacement therapy was lower than that in the first wave. This could be the result of increased knowledge and improved therapeutic options.

Background A reliable central venous access device is a cornerstone in the treatment of cancer. Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and totally implanted chest ports (PORT) are commonly used for the delivery of chemotherapy. Both types of catheter can cause adverse events such as catheter-related deep venous thrombosis (CR-DVT), infection and mechanical complications. Method We conducted a randomized controlled trial including 399 patients with cancer and performed a health economic evaluation investigating the cost related to PICCs and PORTs using several clinically relevant dimensions from a healthcare perspective. The cost was determined using process and cost estimate models. Result PICCs are associated with a higher total cost when compared with PORTs. Combining the costs of all categories, the prize per inserted device was 824.58 EUR for PICC and 662.34 EUR for PORT. When adjusting for total catheter dwell time the price was 6.58 EUR/day for PICC and 3.01 EUR/day for PORT. The difference in CR-DVT was the main contributor to the difference in cost. The daily cost of PICC is approximately twice to that of PORT. Conclusion We have demonstrated that the cost from a healthcare perspective is higher in cancer patients receiving a PICC than to those with a PORT. The difference is driven mainly by the cost related to the management of adverse events. Our findings are relevant to anaesthetists, oncologists and vascular access clinicians and should be considered when choosing vascular access device prior to chemotherapy.

Central venous catheters (CVC) are vital for patients receiving chemotherapy not compatible with peripheral infusion. Thousands of centrally and peripherally inserted central venous catheters are inserted into patients with cancer each year. All types of intravascular catheters are associated with complications. These complications may be divided into infectious, thrombotic, mechanical and occlusive events. All of these events have the potential to harm patients and cause additional expense for the health-care system. Furthermore, the above-mentioned complications are largely avoidable through proper patient selection, insertion technique, hygiene precautions and catheter maintenance.

Catheter-related infections and deep venous thrombosis are the two most common and feared CVC related complications. Infection in a catheter can cause lifethreatening bacteraemia, and thrombosis can lead to pulmonary embolisation, post-thrombotic syndrome and stenosis of the vessel affected. Many studies describing methods to minimise infectious complications associated with central venous catheters have been carried out. These methods appear to have been implemented in most modern advanced healthcare facilities resulting in a continual decrease in catheter-related infections over the last two decades. New implantation techniques, fewer infections and better catheter materials are likely to have contributed to the reduction in the incidence of catheter-related deep venous thrombosis (CR-DVT). Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) and subcutaneously implanted vascular access ports (PORT) are two very commonly used catheter devices for delivery of chemotherapy. International guidelines are unclear as to which device to choose due to the paucity of controlled trials.

The aim of this thesis was to study complications related to central venous access devices used over long periods of time, usually for the delivery of chemotherapy. Vascular access in cancer patients – clinical implications We prospectively studied PORT complications (Study 1) over a six-month follow- up period. In Study 2, we assessed the number of common CVC-related micro- organisms that are transferred across PORT membrane contaminated by a controlled suspension of micro-organisms when a non-coring access needle is inserted using two different techniques. In the largest randomised controlled trial published on this topic (Study 3), we compared PICC with PORT regarding CRDVT and other catheter-related complications. The economic implications of using PICC or PORT were assessed from health-care system´s perspective (Study 4), using data on adverse events and clinical factors (implantation, treatments and dwell-time) from Study 3.

Chemotherapy against various forms of cancer is very common. Implantation of PORT is one of the ten most common surgical procedures in Sweden according to the Swedish Perioperative Register. Hence, the topic in this thesis may be clinically relevant to many patients and their health care providers.

We found that the incidence of catheter-related blood stream infection was very low in the cohorts studied. In general, PICCs are associated with significantly more CR-DVTs and adverse events than PORTs. The cost to the health-care system when using PICC is higher than for PORT when complications are included. Given the choice, patients about to commence chemotherapy appear to prefer PORT to PICC. PORT implantation is more painful than PICC insertion, but PICC appears to influence activities of daily life more than PORT.