Search

Objective: To demonstrate the usefulness of real-time guidance with CT fluoroscopy to improve the yield of transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA).Design: Prospective, observational.Setting: A tertiary-care, university-affiliated medical center.Methods: From December 1998 to April 2000, 35 patients underwent CT fluoroscopy-guided TBNA. Patients with subcarinal and precarinal lymph nodes were only included if a previous attempt was nondiagnostic, as the initial yield in this setting with conventional TBNA is high. TBNA was performed using standard technique in a CT-scan suite. Needle location was confirmed with fluoroscopy without IV contrast being used. Specimens were evaluated on-site for adequacy.Results: The procedure had to be aborted in three patients before TBNA could be performed. Samples were obtained in 32 patients. Samples were nondiagnostic in four patients. Adequate tissue was obtained in 28 of 32 patients (87.5%). Twenty-two patients had a specific benign or malignant diagnosis made, and 6 patients had lymphocytes only on the specimen. In follow-up, only one of these six patients proved to have a malignancy. All procedures were performed within a regular interventional CT time slot of 1 h. No TBNA side effects were noted.Conclusion: TBNA under CT fluoroscopic guidance is easy to perform. The yield in all accessible lymph node stations is high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Failure to wean from prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV) is common in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs), but the process of terminal withdrawal of MV in LTACHs is not well described. We compared terminal withdrawal of MV at an LTACH with that in a medical ICU (MICU).Methods: A retrospective medical chart review was done of all patients undergoing terminal withdrawal of MV in an LTACH (n = 30) and in a MICU (n = 74) over a 2-year period.Results: The decision to withdraw MV was more likely initiated by patient or family in the LTACH and by medical staff in the MICU (p < 0.0001). Social workers, pastoral care, and hospital administration were more likely to participate in the withdrawal process at the LTACH compared with the MICU (p < 0.05). Time from initiation of MV to orders for do not resuscitate, comfort measures only, or withdrawal of MV was significantly greater in the LTACH (weeks) compared with the MICU (days) (p < 0.05). The dose of benzodiazepines given during the final 24 h of life was greater in the MICU as compared with the LTACH (p < 0.05). Narcotic and benzodiazepine use in the hour before or after withdrawal of MV did not differ between the two groups. COPD and pneumonia were the most common causes of death among patients undergoing withdrawal of MV at the LTACH, as opposed to septic shock in the MICU (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Terminal withdrawal of MV in the LTACH differs from that in the MICU with regard to decision making, benzodiazepine use, and cause of death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Successful application of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute respiratory failure (ARF) requires patient cooperation and comfort. The efficacy and safety of early IV dexmedetomidine when added to protocolized, as-needed IV midazolam and fentanyl remain unclear., Methods: Adults with ARF and within 8 h of starting NIV were randomized to receive IV dexmedetomidine (0.2 μg/kg/h titrated every 30 min to 0.7 μg/kg/h to maintain a Sedation-Agitation Scale [SAS] score of 3 to 4) or placebo in a double-blind fashion up to 72 h, until NIV was stopped for ≥ 2 h, or until intubation. Patients with agitation (SAS ≥ 5) or pain (visual analog scale ≥ 5 of 10 cm) 15 min after each dexmedetomidine and placebo increase could receive IV midazolam 0.5 to 1.0 mg or IV fentanyl 25 to 50 μg, respectively, at a minimum interval of every 3 h., Results: The dexmedetomidine (n = 16) and placebo (n = 17) groups were similar at baseline. Use of early dexmedetomidine did not improve NIV tolerance (score, 1 of 4; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.44-4.70; P = .54) nor, vs. placebo, led to a greater median (interquartile range) percent time either tolerating NIV (99% [61%-100%] vs. 67% [40%-100%], P = .56) or remaining at the desired sedation level (SAS score = 3 or 4, 100% [86%-100%] vs. 100% [100%-100%], P = .28], or fewer intubations (P = .79). Although use of dexmedetomidine was associated with a greater duration of NIV vs placebo (37 [16-72] vs. 12 [4-22] h, P = .03), the total ventilation duration (NIV + invasive) was similar (3.3 [2-4] days vs. 3.8 [2-5] days, P = .52). More patients receiving dexmedetomidine had one or more episodes of deep sedation vs placebo (SAS ≤ 2, 25% vs. 0%, P = .04). Use of midazolam (P = .40) and episodes of either severe bradycardia (heart rate ≤ 50 beats/min, P = .18) or hypotension (systolic BP ≤ 90 mm Hg, P = .64) were similar., Conclusions: Initiating dexmedetomidine soon after NIV initiation in patients with ARF neither improves NIV tolerance nor helps to maintain sedation at a desired goal. Randomized, multicenter trials targeting patients with initial intolerance are needed to further elucidate the role for dexmedetomidine in this population.

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV), the provision of ventilatory assistance without an artificial airway, has emerged as an important ventilatory modality in critical care. This has been fueled by evidence demonstrating improved outcomes in patients with respiratory failure due to COPD exacerbations, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, or immunocompromised states, and when NIV is used to facilitate extubation in COPD patients with failed spontaneous breathing trials. Numerous other applications are supported by weaker evidence. A trial of NIV is justified in patients with acute respiratory failure due to asthma exacerbations and postoperative states, extubation failure, hypoxemic respiratory failure, or a do-not-intubate status. Patients must be carefully selected according to available guidelines and clinical judgment, taking into account risk factors for NIV failure. Patients begun on NIV should be monitored closely in an ICU or other suitable setting until adequately stabilized, paying attention not only to vital signs and gas exchange, but also to comfort and tolerance. Patients not having a favorable initial response to NIV should be considered for intubation without delay. NIV is currently used in only a select minority of patients with acute respiratory failure, but with technical advances and new evidence on its proper application, this role is likely to further expand.