RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It can be challenging for clinicians to predict which patients with respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will fail on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen and require escalation of therapy. This study set out to evaluate the association between the respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ROX) and HFNC failure in such patients and to assess whether ROX trajectory correlates with treatment failure. METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective, observational study of patients with COVID-19 requiring HFNC, conducted over a 3-month period. ROX was calculated as "pulse-oximetry oxygen saturation (SpO2) over the fractional inspired oxygen concentration (FiO2)/respiratory rate" for each patient at 2, 4, and 12 hours from starting HFNC. HFNC failure was defined as escalation to continuous positive airway pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Time-to-event analyses were performed to account for the longitudinal data set and time-dependent variables. RESULTS: We included 146 patients. Ninety-three (63.7%) experienced HFNC failure, with 53 (36.3%) requiring IMV. Higher ROX values were associated with a lower subhazard of HFNC failure on time-to-HFNC failure analysis (subhazard ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.46; P<0.001). This remained true after controlling for informative censoring. Median ROX values changed differentially over time, increasing in the HFNC success group (0.06 per hour; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08; P<0.001) but not in the HFNC failure group (0.004 per hour; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.08; P=0.890). CONCLUSIONS: A higher ROX is associated with a lower risk of HFNC failure. Monitoring ROX trajectory over time may help identify patients at risk of treatment failure. This has potential clinical applications; however, future prospective studies are required.
RESUMEN
Background Protocols for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) have been constantly evolving, and the best method of managing perioperative pain, especially in laparoscopic surgeries, is still debatable. The primary goal of these protocols is to steer toward opioid-sparing analgesia. Intravenous lidocaine, which has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, may improve the overall recovery of patients. Objectives The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusion (IVL) with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in the management of perioperative pain and recovery in the laparoscopic left-sided colon and sphincter-sparing rectal surgery. Methods In this study, 37 patients were randomized to either the IVL group or the TEA group. IVL infusion was started before the surgical incision and stopped 30 minutes after transferring the patient to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, rescue analgesic doses, quality of recovery scores, time to discharge, and adverse events were recorded prospectively. Data were analyzed using two independent sample t-test and paired t-test, with p < 0.05 taken as statistically significant. Results The mean difference of overall NRS (numerical rating scale) pain scores in the ward was significantly higher in the IVL group as compared to the TEA group, which was 3.58 (2.29) vs 2.23 1.95) (p < 0.001). The IVL group required more mean rescue opioid boluses than the TEA group, which was 11.36 (8.684) vs 5.96 (6.215) (p < 0.001). However, both IVL and TEA groups had similar pain scores intraoperatively and in the PACU. Conclusions TEA provides better analgesia and decreased opioid requirements compared to intravenous lidocaine during the 24-hour period in the ward after laparoscopic left-sided colon and sphincter-sparing rectal surgery, although there was no difference in the quality of recovery between IVL and TEA groups.