RESUMEN
Placing a nasogastric tube (NGT) is a frequent nursing technique in intensive care units. The gold standard for its correct positioning is the chest X-ray due to its high sensitivity, but it represents a radiation source for critically ill patients. Our study aims to analyze whether the ultrasound performed by an intensive care nurse is a valid method to verify the NGT's correct positioning and to evaluate the degree of interobserver agreement between this nurse and an intensive care physician in the NGT visualization using ultrasound. Its correct positioning was verified by direct visualization of the tube in the stomach and indirect visualization by injecting fluid and air through the tube ("dynamic fogging" technique). A total of 23 critically ill patients participated in the study. A sensitivity of 35% was achieved using direct visualization, increasing up to 85% using indirect visualization. The degree of interobserver agreement was 0.88. Therefore, the indirect visualization of the NGT by an intensive care nurse using ultrasound could be a valid method to check its positioning. However, the low sensitivity obtained by direct visualization suggests the need for further training of intensive care nurses in ultrasonography. According to the excellent degree of agreement obtained, ultrasound could be performed by both professionals.
Asunto(s)
Impedancia Eléctrica , Hipertensión Pulmonar , Óxido Nítrico , Respiración con Presión Positiva , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Humanos , Hipertensión Pulmonar/fisiopatología , Hipertensión Pulmonar/diagnóstico por imagen , Óxido Nítrico/administración & dosificación , Respiración con Presión Positiva/métodos , Administración por Inhalación , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnóstico por imagen , Tomografía/métodos , Masculino , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pulmón/diagnóstico por imagenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health care systems during viral epidemics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had undergone tracheostomy in 15 Spanish ICUs during the surge, when ICU occupancy modified clinician criteria to perform tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19. We compared ventilator-free days at 28 and 60 days and ICU- and hospital bed-free days at 28 and 60 days in propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent tracheostomy at different timings (≤ 7 days, 8-10 days, and 11-14 days after intubation). RESULTS: Of 1,939 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia, 682 (35.2%) underwent tracheostomy, 382 (56%) within 14 days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with more ventilator-free days at 28 days (≤ 7 days vs > 7 days [116 patients included in the analysis]: median, 9 days [interquartile range (IQR), 0-15 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 0-7 days]; difference between groups, 4.5 days; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7 days; 8-10 days vs > 10 days [222 patients analyzed]: 6 days [IQR, 0-10 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-6 days]; difference, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 1.7-4.5 days; 11-14 days vs > 14 days [318 patients analyzed]: 4 days [IQR, 0-9 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-2 days]; difference, 3 days; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 days). Except hospital bed-free days at 28 days, all other end points were better with early tracheostomy. INTERPRETATION: Optimal timing of tracheostomy may improve patient outcomes and may alleviate ICU capacity strain during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing mortality. Tracheostomy within the first work on a ventilator in particular may improve ICU availability.