METHODS AND RESULTS : Single-centre randomized controlled trial of patients admitted to the emergency department due to ACPO with hypoxemia and dyspnoea on face mask oxygen therapy. Patients were randomly assigned with a 1:1 ratio to receive hCPAP or HFNC and FiO2 set to achieve an arterial oxygen saturation >94%. The primary outcome was a reduction in respiratory rate; secondary outcomes included changes in heart rate, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, Heart rate, Acidosis, Consciousness, Oxygenation, and Respiratory rate (HACOR) score, Dyspnoea Scale, and intubation rate. Data were collected before hCPAP/HFNC placement and after 1 h of treatment. Amongst 188 patients randomized, hCPAP was more effective than HFNC in reducing respiratory rate [-12 (95% CI; 11-13) vs. -9 (95% CI; 8-10), P
METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO2) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score.
RESULTS: Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO2, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO2 improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608).
CONCLUSION: HFNC may be beneficial in COVID-19 HRF. NRB + NC is a viable alternative, especially in resource-limited settings, given similar improvement in oxygenation at two hours, and no significant differences in long-term outcomes. The effectiveness of NRB + NC needs to be investigated by a powered randomized controlled trial.
Presentation of case: In this case, we conceded that both iatrogenic and self-infliction were culpable. The intoxicated, aggressive patient forcefully removed the inserted cannula after repeated attempts by medical personnel to place it. The same cannula was used for multiple attempts. After the location of the fractured catheter was reconfirmed with radiological imaging, venotomy and removal of the foreign body were performed.
Conclusion: Due to potentially devastating consequences, early detection, adherence to standard operating procedures for peripheral venous access, management of aggressive patients, and meticulous teamwork must be upheld.
CASE PRESENTATION: We present here a novel technique of using intravenous (IV) cannula as an alternative to suture passer for fascial closure during laparoscopic IPOM repair for a 59-year-old patient with an incisional ventral hernia. The placement of non-absorbable sutures for fascial closure was done with the help of a 14 gauge IV cannula instead of a transfascial suture passer. The rest of the procedural steps were the same as a standard laparoscopic IPOM repair. The patient's post-operative recovery was uneventful.
DISCUSSION: Primary fascial closure during a laparoscopic IPOM hernia repair can be done either by intracorporeal or extracorporeal techniques, using interrupted or continuous sutures. We propose a novel alternative to suture passer in primary fascial closure. IV cannulas are widely available in hospital settings. The advantage of using an IV cannula instead of a suture passer is that they are widely available. Its single-use also eliminates the risk of transmissible diseases, and as it has a smaller diameter than suture passer, it requires a lower insertion force for successful placement.
CONCLUSION: An IV cannula may be used as a more economical alternative to a transfascial suture passer. This technique is easily reproducible and does not violate the principles of primary fascial defect closure in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.
METHODS: We conducted an observational crossover bench study to compare the cannula-to-Melker with the scalpel-bougie technique in a porcine tracheal model. Twenty-eight anesthetists participated. The primary outcome was time taken for device insertion. Secondary outcomes were first-pass success rate, incidence of tracheal trauma, and technique preference. We also compared the data on outcome measures with the data obtained in a similar workshop a year ago.
RESULTS: The scalpel-bougie technique was significantly faster than the cannula-to-Melker technique for cricothyroidotomy (median time of 45.2 s vs. 101.3 s; P = 0.001). Both techniques had 100% success rate within two attempts; there were no significant differences in the first-pass success rates and incidence of tracheal wall trauma (P > 0.999 and P = 0.727, respectively) between them. The relative risks of inflicting tracheal wall trauma after a failed cricothyroidotomy attempt were 6.9 (95% CI 1.5-31.1), 2.3 (95% CI 0.3-20.7) and 3.0 (95% CI 0.3-25.9) for the scalpel-bougie, cannula-cricothyroidotomy, and Melker-Seldinger airway, respectively. The insertion time and incidence of tracheal wall trauma were lower when the present data were compared with data from a similar workshop conducted the previous year.
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of a scalpel-bougie technique for cricothyroidotomy by anesthetists and advocates a yearly training program for skill retention.
METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study replacing the undivided nasal cannula with a divided nasal cannula during routine polysomnography (n = 28).
RESULTS: Integration of the divided nasal cannula pressure transducer system into routine polysomnography was easy and affordable. Most patients (89%) demonstrated nasal cycle changes during the test. Nasal cycle changes tended to occur during body position changes (62%) and transitions from non-rapid eye movement sleep to rapid eye movement sleep (41%). The mean nasal cycle duration was 2.5 ± 2.1 hours. Other sleep study metrics did not reveal statistically significant findings in relation to the nasal cycle.
CONCLUSIONS: Replacing an undivided nasal cannula with a divided nasal cannula is easy to implement, adding another physiologic measure to polysomnography. Although the divided nasal cannula did not significantly affect traditional polysomnographic metrics such as the apnea-hypopnea index or periodic limb movement index based on this small pilot study, we were able to replicate past nasal cycle findings that may be of interest to sleep clinicians and researchers. Given the ease with which the divided nasal cannula can be integrated, we encourage other sleep researchers to investigate the utility of using a divided nasal cannula during polysomnography.
Methods: There were 20 healthy participants with normal ears, and all gave an informed consent. After an otoscopy, a baseline pure tone audiogram (PTA) was conducted. If the PTA of the participant was normal, aqueous cream was applied with a syringe via an 18 G cannula, from the tympanic membrane up to the isthmus which corresponds to the bony ear canal. A second PTA was conducted, and subsequently the cream was removed via suction under microscope guidance. The procedure was then repeated with the cream applied from the isthmus to the aperture of the external ear canal using the same cannula followed by a PTA and removal of cream under microscope.
Results: The mean threshold difference of occlusion at both portions of the ear canal were compared and analyzed. The mean threshold difference of hearing loss upon occlusion at the cartilaginous EAC was 37.5 to 48 dB. The mean threshold difference of hearing loss upon occlusion at the bony EAC was less, with a range of 21 to 24.95dB. There was a statistical difference (p<0.05) in the hearing loss between the blockage of the cartilaginous canal versus the blockage of the bony canal with a maximum difference at 2kHz.
Conclusion: Cartilaginous block of the external ear canal causes more hearing loss than block of the bony ear canal. This correlates with the concept and properties of sound waves, resonance and impedance.