Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The Thoraguard Surgical Drainage System is a novel device for drainage of air and fluid after cardiothoracic surgery. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A three-part study was conducted: a prospective observational safety and feasibility study, a retrospective comparison of patients managed with an analogue drainage system, and a clinician user-feedback survey. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:2.8 days (IQR 1-3) (P=0.004). Compared to an analogue system, the Thoraguard system had superior user-reported ability to detect air-leaks (17/23, 74%), better ease of patient ambulation (14/23, 61%), and better display of clinically relevant information (22/23, 96%). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The Thoraguard Surgical Drainage System provides safe and effective drainage post pulmonary resection. Compared to an analogue system, the Thoraguard system detected a higher number of air leaks and was associated with decreased chest tube duration and hospital length of stay. User survey data reported superior air leak detection, display of clinical data, and ease of use of the Thoraguard system.

BACKGROUND:Our objective was to report the incidence, management, and outcomes of patients who developed a secondary pneumothorax while admitted for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS:A single-institution, retrospective review of patients admitted for COVID-19 with a diagnosis of pneumothorax between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, was performed. The primary assessment was the incidence of pneumothorax. Secondarily, we analyzed clinical outcomes of patients requiring tube thoracostomy, including those requiring operative intervention. RESULTS:From March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2020, 118 of 1595 patients (7.4%) admitted for COVID-19 developed a pneumothorax. Of these, 92 (5.8%) required tube thoracostomy drainage for a median of 12 days (interquartile range 5-25 days). The majority of patients (95 of 118, 80.5%) were on mechanical ventilation at the time of pneumothorax, 17 (14.4%) were iatrogenic, and 25 patients (21.2%) demonstrated tension physiology. Placement of a large-bore chest tube (20 F or greater) was associated with fewer tube-related complications than a small-bore tube (14 F or less) (14 vs 26 events, P = .011). Six patients with pneumothorax (5.1%) required operative management for a persistent alveolar-pleural fistula. In patients with pneumothorax, median hospital stay was 36 days (interquartile range 20-63 days) and in-hospital mortality was significantly higher than for those without pneumothorax (58% vs 13%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:The incidence of secondary pneumothorax in patients admitted for COVID-19 is 7.4%, most commonly occurring in patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and is associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 58%. Placement of large-bore chest tubes is associated with fewer complications than small-bore tubes.

BACKGROUND:Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used in patients in whom conventional mechanical ventilatory support has failed. To date, published data have focused on survival from ECMO and survival to discharge. In addition to survival to discharge, this study reports 1-year follow-up data for patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital. METHODS:A single-institution, retrospective review of all patients with severe COVID-19 who were cannulated for VV-ECMO between March 10, 2020 and May 1, 2020 was performed. A multidisciplinary ECMO team evaluated, selected, and managed patients with ECMO support. The primary outcome of this study was survival to discharge. Available 1-year follow-up data are also reported. RESULTS:A total of 30 patients were supported with VV-ECMO, and 27 patients (90%) survived to discharge. All patients were discharged home or to acute rehabilitation on room air, except for 1 patient (3.7%), who required supplemental oxygen therapy. At a median follow-up of 10.8 months (interquartile range [IQR], 8.9-14.4 months) since ECMO cannulation, survival was 86.7%, including 1 patient who underwent lung transplantation. Of the patients discharged from the hospital, 44.4% (12/27) had pulmonary function testing, with a median percent predicted forced expiratory volume of 100% (IQR, 91%-110%). For survivors, a 6-minute walk test was performed in 59.3% (16/27), with a median value of 350 m (IQR, 286-379 m). CONCLUSIONS:A well-defined patient selection and management strategy of VV-ECMO support in patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in exceptional survival to discharge that was sustained at 1-year after ECMO cannulation.

OBJECTIVE:As the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic continues, appropriate management of thoracic complications from Coronavirus Disease 2019 needs to be determined. Our objective is to evaluate which complications occurring in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 require thoracic surgery and to report the early outcomes. METHODS:This study is a single-institution retrospective case series at New York University Langone Health Manhattan campus evaluating patients with confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 infection who were hospitalized and required thoracic surgery from March 13 to July 18, 2020. RESULTS:From March 13 to August 8, 2020, 1954 patients were admitted to New York University Langone Health for Coronavirus Disease 2019. Of these patients, 13 (0.7%) required thoracic surgery. Two patients (15%) required surgery for complicated pneumothoraces, 5 patients (38%) underwent pneumatocele resection, 1 patient (8%) had an empyema requiring decortication, and 5 patients (38%) developed a hemothorax that required surgery. Three patients (23%) died after surgery, 9 patients (69%) were discharged, and 1 patient (8%) remains in the hospital. No healthcare providers were positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019 after the surgeries. CONCLUSIONS:Given the 77% survival, with a majority of patients already discharged from the hospital, thoracic surgery is feasible for the small percent of patients hospitalized with Coronavirus Disease 2019 who underwent surgery for complex pneumothorax, pneumatocele, empyema, or hemothorax. Our experience also supports the safety of surgical intervention for healthcare providers who operate on patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND AND AIM/OBJECTIVE:Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop a profound cytokine-mediated pro-inflammatory response. This study reports outcomes in 10 patients with COVID-19 supported on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) who were selected for the emergency use of a hemoadsorption column integrated in the ECMO circuit. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Pre and posttreatment, clinical data, and inflammatory markers were assessed to determine the safety and feasibility of using this system and to evaluate the clinical effect. RESULTS:During hemoadsorption, median levels of interleukin (IL)-2R, IL-6, and IL-10 decreased by 54%, 86%, and 64%, respectively. Reductions in other markers were observed for lactate dehydrogenase (-49%), ferritin (-46%), d-dimer (-7%), C-reactive protein (-55%), procalcitonin (-76%), and lactate (-44%). Vasoactive-inotrope scores decreased significantly over the treatment interval (-80%). The median hospital length of stay was 53 days (36-85) and at 90-days post cannulation, survival was 90% which was similar to a group of patients without the use of hemoadsorption. CONCLUSIONS:Addition of hemoadsorption to VV-ECMO in patients with severe COVID-19 is feasible and reduces measured cytokine levels. However, in this small series, the precise impact on the overall clinical course and survival benefit still remains unknown.

Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb has been used as an adjunct in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure. It remains unknown if CytoSorb hemoadsorption will alter sedative and analgesic dosing in critically ill patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). We conducted a retrospective review of patients with severe COVID-19 requiring VV-ECMO for respiratory support. Patients who were enrolled in a clinical study of CytoSorb were compared with patients on VV-ECMO alone. Data were collected for the 72-hour CytoSorb therapy and an additional 72 hours post-CytoSorb, or a corresponding control time period. Sedative and analgesic doses were totaled for each day and converted to midazolam or fentanyl equivalents, respectively. The primary endpoint, change in sedative and analgesic requirements over time, were compared using a two-way mixed analysis of variance. Of the 30 patients cannulated for VV-ECMO for COVID-19, 4 were excluded, leaving 8 patients in the CytoSorb arm and 18 in the Control. There was no effect of CytoSorb therapy on midazolam equivalents over the 72-hour therapy (p = 0.71) or the 72 hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.11). In contrast, there was a significant effect of CytoSorb therapy on fentanyl equivalents over the first 72 hours (p = 0.01), but this was not consistent over the 72-hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.23). CytoSorb therapy led to significant increases in analgesic requirements without impacting sedative requirements. Further research is needed to define the relevance of CytoSorb hemoadsorption on critical care pharmacotherapy.