Search

Prolonged observation could avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and related risks in patients with Covid-19 acute respiratory failure (ARF) compared to initiating early IMV. We aimed to determine the association between ARF management strategy and in-hospital mortality.Patients in the Weill Cornell Covid-19 registry who developed ARF between March 5 - March 25, 2020 were exposed to an early IMV strategy; between March 26 - April 1, 2020 to an intermediate strategy; and after April 2 to prolonged observation. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model in-hospital mortality and test an interaction between ARF management strategy and modified sequential organ failure assessment (mSOFA).Among 632 patients with ARF, 24% of patients in the early IMV strategy died versus 28% in prolonged observation. At lower mSOFA, prolonged observation was associated with lower mortality compared to early IMV (at mSOFA = 0, HR 0.16 [95% CI 0.04-0.57]). Mortality risk increased in the prolonged observation strategy group with each point increase in mSOFA score (HR 1.29 [95% CI 1.10-1.51], p = 0.002).In Covid-19 ARF, prolonged observation was associated with a mortality benefit at lower mSOFA scores, and increased mortality at higher mSOFA scores compared to early IMV.

It is not known whether an intervention using real-time provider teaching in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) improves provider knowledge and/or patient outcomes.To pilot the combination of a novel, real-time provider teaching intervention delivered by subspecialists to Internal Medicine trainees with a traditional patient education and medication reconciliation (PEMR) intervention and to assess the impact of these interventions on provider knowledge regarding COPD and patient care.This was a single-center, nonrandomized, quality-improvement study. Patients admitted with AECOPD were prospectively identified between June 19 and November 20, 2019. Patients with asthma, lung cancer, or interstitial lung disease were excluded. The primary care team received a novel intervention featuring in-person, real-time teaching, covering Global Initiative on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease COPD groups and management, including pulmonary rehabilitation referral. Providers completed a knowledge assessment before and after their real-time teaching session. Provider knowledge scores before and after teaching were compared using McNemar's test. Patients received a traditional PEMR intervention from a nurse practitioner and/or clinical pharmacist. A retrospective chart review was conducted for 50 historical control patients admitted with AECOPD to obtain preintervention rates of discharge on long-acting bronchodilators and referral to pulmonary rehabilitation. The proportions of patients discharged on long-acting bronchodilators and referred to pulmonary rehabilitation in the intervention group were compared with the preintervention historical control patients using chi-square testing.Seventy-one providers caring for patients with AECOPD received real-time teaching. Postintervention, there was significant improvement in knowledge scores pertaining to Global Initiative on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease groups and exacerbation risk (81% correct vs. 43% on pretest;In this single-center quality-improvement study, the combination of a novel, real-time provider teaching intervention and a traditional PEMR intervention improved provider knowledge and was associated with increased referrals to pulmonary rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the main factors contributing to hospital readmissions and their potential preventability after a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization at 2 New York City hospitals. METHODS: This was a retrospective study at 2 affiliated New York City hospitals located in the Upper East Side and Lower Manhattan neighborhoods. We performed case reviews using the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network framework to determine potentially preventable readmissions among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 3, 2020 (date of first case) and April 27, 2020, and readmitted to either of the 2 hospitals within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among 53 readmissions after hospitalization for COVID-19, 44 (83%) were deemed not preventable and 9 (17%) were potentially preventable. Nonpreventable readmissions were mostly due to disease progression or complications of COVID-19 (37/44, 84%). Main factors contributing to potentially preventable readmissions were issues with initial disposition (5/9, 56%), premature discharge (3/9, 33%), and inappropriate readmission (1/9, 11%) for someone who likely did not require rehospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Most readmissions after a COVID-19 hospitalization were not preventable and a consequence of the natural progression of the disease, specifically worsening dyspnea or hypoxemia. Some readmissions were potentially preventable, mostly because of issues with disposition that were directly related to challenges posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians should be aware of challenges with disposition related to circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Population-based studies have shown a significant heterogeneity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), regarding both the attainment of maximal lung function and the subsequent decline over time. This review will highlight recent advances in the understanding of lung function trajectory in COPD, focusing on factors that influence peak adult lung function, markers of accelerated lung function decline and pharmacologic interventions in early phases of the disease.Recent data have shown that individuals with lower lung function early in life will go on to develop lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in adulthood. Smoking can amplify the effect of specific childhood exposures on maximal adult lung function. Clinical symptoms such as chronic mucous hypersecretion and the biomarker club cell secretory protein have been associated with lung function decline over time. New computed tomography imaging markers also show promise as a way to detect early small airway disease, but need to be examined more longitudinally. In addition to these advances, a slower decline in FEV1 has been demonstrated in two randomized clinical trials studying tiotropium and inhaled fluticasone.A better understanding of lung function development and eventual decline in those at risk for progression to COPD will aide in a precision medicine approach, in which markers for those at risk of low maximal lung function and accelerated decline are identified. Targeted therapy can then be used early to modify disease activity and outcomes.

Purpose American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines recommend the use of bronchoscopic intubation as a rescue technique in critically ill patients. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of bronchoscopic intubation as an initial approach in critically ill patients. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent endotracheal intubation in the medical intensive care unit of a tertiary urban referral center over 1 academic year. The primary outcome was first-pass success rate. Measurements and main results We identified 219 patients who underwent either bronchoscopic (n = 52) or laryngoscopic guided (n = 167) intubation as the initial attempt. There was a higher first-pass success rate in the bronchoscopic intubation group than in the laryngoscopic group (96% vs 78%; P = .003). The bronchoscopic intubation group had a higher body mass index (28.4 vs 25.9; P = .027) and higher preintubation fraction of inspired oxygen requirement (0.73 ± 0.27 vs 0.63 ± 0.30; P = .044) than the laryngoscopic group. There were no cases of right mainstem intubation, esophageal intubation, or pneumothorax with bronchoscopic intubation. Rates of postintubation hypotension and hypoxemia were similar in both groups. The association with first-pass success remained with multivariate and propensity matched analysis. Conclusions Bronchoscopic intubation as an initial strategy in critically ill patients is associated with a higher first-pass success rate than laryngoscopic intubation, and is not associated with an increase in complications.

Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) frequently experience unplanned hospital readmissions leading to increased morbidity [1]. The European Union COPD audit found that 35% of patients admitted with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) were readmitted within 90 days [2]. In the United States, 22% of patients admitted with AECOPD experienced a 30-day readmission, motivating financial policies to incentivize readmission reduction [1]. Footnotes This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal . It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article. Conflict of interest: Dr. Krishnan reports grants from NHLBI/NIH, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: Ms. Voelker has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr. Connett has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr. Niewoehner reports grants from National Institute of Health, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Astrazeneca, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr. Albert has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr. Scanlon reports grants from National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, during the conduct of the study; grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Forest Pharmaceuticals, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Novartis, grants from Pearl Therapeutics, other from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr. Dransfield reports grants from NHLBI, during the conduct of the study; grants from Department of Defense , personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingeheim, personal fees and other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Novartis, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, other from Yungjin, other from PneumRx/BTG, other from Pulmonx, personal fees from Genentech, personal fees and other from Boston Scientific , outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr. Han reports personal fees from BI, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from AZ, non-financial support from Novartis, non-financial support from Sunovion, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr. Martinez reports non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Continuing Education, personal fees from Forest Laboratories, other from Janssen, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Nycomed/Takeda, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Bellerophon (formerly Ikaria), personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pearl, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sunovion, personal fees from Theravance, personal fees from CME Incite, personal fees from Annenberg Center for Health Sciences at Eisenhower, personal fees from Integritas, personal fees from InThought, personal fees from National Association for Continuing Education, personal fees from Paradigm Medical Communications, LLC, personal fees from PeerVoice, personal fees from UpToDate, personal fees from Haymarket Communications, personal fees from Western Society of Allergy and Immunology, from Proterixbio (formerly Bioscale), personal fees from Unity Biotechnology, personal fees from ConCert Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Lucid, personal fees from Methodist Hospital, personal fees from Columbia University, personal fees from Prime Healthcare Ltd, personal fees from WebMD, personal fees from PeerView Network, personal fees from California Society of Allergy and Immunology, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from Puerto Rico Thoracic Society, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr. Criner reports grants from Boehringer- Ingelheim, grants from Novartis, grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Respironics, grants from MedImmune, grants from Actelion, grants from Forest, grants from Pearl , grants from Ikaria , grants from Aeris , grants from PneumRx, grants from Pulmonx , other from HGE Health Care Solutions, Inc, other from Amirall, other from Boehringer- Ingelheim, other from Holaira, outside the submitted work.

In-hospital continuous electrocardiographic monitoring, commonly referred to as telemetry, has allowed for rapid recognition of life-threatening conditions, including complex arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia. However, inappropriate use can lead to unnecessary downstream testing from "false alarms," which in turn affects clinician efficiency and increases health care costs without benefiting patients. For these reasons, the Society of Hospital Medicine's Choosing Wisely campaign recommended use of a protocol-driven discontinuation of telemetry. The American Heart Association (AHA) developed a set of Practice Standards for the appropriate use of telemetry monitoring in 2004, which they updated in 2017. Unfortunately, the AHA Practice Standards have not been widely adopted-with as many as 43% of monitored patients lacking a recommended indication for monitoring. Thus, we created an overview discussing the safety and efficacy of incorporating the AHA Practice Standards and a review of studies highlighting their successful incorporation within patient care workflow. We conclude by outlining an "implementation blueprint" for health system professionals and administrators seeking to change their institution's culture of telemetry use. As the health care landscape continues to shift, enacting high-value initiatives that improve patient safety and efficiency of care will be critical.