scholarly journals COVID-19 in Multimorbid Patients—A Controlled Microcost Description Analysis of Diagnosis Related Group (DRG)-Case Series in Acute Care without Non-Invasive Ventilation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-762
Author(s):  
Tobias Romeyke ◽  
Harald Stummer
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
Cost Calculation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Related Group ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Multimorbid Patients ◽  
Medical Infrastructure

Diagnosis-related cost analyzes are important for health economic planning and decision-making. They form the basis for further developing of remuneration systems for health services. The rapid increase in hospital stays by COVID-19 patients requires a valid and exact calculation of the treatment costs. COVID-19 patients with many accompanying illnesses increase the requirements for a cost calculation. The focus of this work is to carry out a DRG-related micro-cost analysis, considering the age, length of stay and comorbidities of COVID-19 patients. So far, there is little information about treatment costs for multimorbid patients with COVID-19 who have not received invasive ventilation. The method is based on a standardized cost unit calculation for determining the treatment costs in a German hospital. The costs (€) of inpatients treated with COVID-19 were compared with a control group of the same DRGs of patients without COVID-19. The average total costs for inpatient treatment were €2866. The highest share of costs falls on nursing, personnel, and material costs of the non-medical infrastructure. Frequent comorbidities were heart failure, diabetes mellitus, other respiratory diseases, dizziness, and impairment of the musculoskeletal system.

Department of Internal Medicine. University Hospital of Patras. Patras.

2022 ◽  
Vol 35 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Themistoklis Paraskevas ◽  
Eleousa Oikonomou ◽  
Maria Lagadinou ◽  
Vasileios Karamouzos ◽  
Nikolaos Zareifopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Case Series ◽  
High Flow ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
High Flow Oxygen

Introduction: Oxygen therapy remains the cornerstone for managing patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and several modalities of non-invasive ventilation are used worldwide. High-flow oxygen via nasal canula is one therapeutic option which may in certain cases prevent the need of mechanical ventilation. The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence on the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.Material and Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Library until April 2021 using the following search terms: “high flow oxygen and COVID-19” and “high flow nasal and COVID-19’’.Results: Twenty-three articles were included in this review, in four of which prone positioning was used as an adjunctive measure. Most of the articles were cohort studies or case series. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy was associated with a reduced need for invasive ventilation compared to conventional oxygen therapy and led to an improvement in secondary clinical outcomes such as length of stay. The efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy was comparable to that of other non-invasive ventilation options, but its tolerability is likely higher. Failure of this modality was associated with increased mortality.Conclusion: High flow nasal oxygen is an established option for respiratory support in COVID-19 patients. Further investigation is required to quantify its efficacy and utility in preventing the requirement of invasive ventilation.

Effectiveness of hydrocolloid nasal dressing pads in preventing nasal ulceration in preterm infants using non-invasive ventilation

MedPharmRes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Chau Vu Bao Nguyen ◽  
Tinh Thu Nguyen ◽  
Tam Thi Thanh Pham ◽  
Sen Thi Hong Lam ◽  
Le An Pham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
The Other ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Nasal Bridge ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Hydrocolloid Dressing ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Background: The use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in preterm infants is becoming increasingly common. The use of cannula in NIV can cause ulceration of the nasal bridge with the current practices using the thin foam patches. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of hydrocolloid nasal dressing pads in preventing nasal ulceration comparing to that of the thin foam patches. Methods: A prospective cohort study using hydrocolloid dressing pads (1 November to 30 April 2020) was compared to that of a historical control group using thin foam dressing (1 April to 15 October 2019) to evaluate the effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressing pads. All participants were preterm infants (less than 37 weeks of gestational age) and used nasal cannula NIV at the Department of Neonatal Intensive Care (NICU), Children's Hospital 1. Results: 71 infants used hydrocolloid dressing pads, and 42 used ordinary thin foam nasal dressings. In the hydrocolloid dressings group, two infants (2.8%) had nasal ulcers; among them, one was mild, and the other was moderate. In comparison, ten infants (23.8%) using thin foam dressings developed ulcers, of which seven were mild, two were moderate, and one was severe. Using hydrocolloid nasal dressings significantly reduced nasal ulceration compared to thin foam dressings (OR = 0.09, 95%CI = 0.02 – 0.45). Conclusion: Using hydrocolloid nasal dressings for preterm infants on nasal cannula NIV significantly reduced nasal ulceration compared to ordinary thin foam dressings.

scholarly journals Observational case-control study of non-invasive ventilation in patients with ARDS

2016 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Domenighetti ◽  
A. Moccia ◽  
R. Gayer
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Suitable Alternative ◽  
Real Effects ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Organ Failures ◽  
Distant Organ ◽  
Control Study

Background. The application of non-invasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) in patients with acute lung injury or ARDS remains controversial despite recent promising results. Data in rather homogeneous ARDS groups is lacking. Objective. To compare the outcome of NIPSV-treated patients satisfying the diagnostic criteria for primary (pulmonary) ARDS (ARDSp) and presenting without distant organ failures at admission, with those of a matched control group treated in the same ICU with endotracheal mechanical ventilation (ETMV). Methods. We applied NIPSV in 12 immunocompetent and collaborative patients who met the above cited criteria. NIPSV failure rate, short-term oxygenation, length of stay, mortality rate and complications were analyzed and compared with a control group of 12 intubated ARDSp-patients matched for age, SAPS II, PaO2/FiO2 and pH at admission. Results. NIPSV failed in 4 patients developing distant organ failures. Compared to the ETMV control group, NIPSV success patients had reduced cumulative time on ventilation (p = 0.001) and length of ICU stay (p = 0.004). After the first 60’ of ventilation, oxygenation improved more in the NIPSV than in the ETMV group (146 ± 52 mmHg vs 109 ± 34 mmHg; p = 0.05). The overall ICU mortality rate did not differ significantly between the groups but tended to be higher in the NIPSV group. Conclusions. In ARDSp patients without distant organ failures at admission and during the disease course, NIPSV might be a suitable alternative to invasive ventilation; however, the real effects on outcome of NIPSV applied to stable homogeneous subgroups of ARDS patients merit further investigations in randomised studies.

scholarly journals Non-invasive ventilation in the treatment of severe polymicrobial community-acquired pneumonia

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Enrico Cinque ◽  
Ines Maria Grazia Piroddi ◽  
Cornelius Barlascini ◽  
Alessandro Perazzo ◽  
Antonello Nicolini
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Community Acquired Pneumonia ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Increased Risk

Polymicrobial pneumonia may be caused by the combination of respiratory viruses, bacteria and fungi in a host. Colonization by <em>Streptococcus pneumoniae</em> was associated with increased risk of Intensive Care Unit admission or death in the setting of influenza infection, whereas the colonization by methicillin sensible <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> co-infection was associated with severe disease and death in adults and children. The principal association of pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is bacteria and viral co-infection, and accounts approximately for 39% of microbiological diagnosed cases of CAP. The differential clinical diagnosis between a viral and a bacterial CAP is not easy: no clinical signs or radiological findings help the clinician to suspect to the diagnosis. Patients with polymicrobial infections are more likely to have underlying medical conditions and have more severe outcome. Severe respiratory failure and need of mechanical ventilation occur in several cases. Non invasive ventilation (NIV) use aims to avoid invasive mechanical ventilation. NIV treatment is controversial owing to high reported treatment failure. In this case series we report three cases of severe polymicrobial CAP: all of them required NIV with a good outcome.

Music-assisted relaxation during transition to non-invasive ventilation in people with motor neuron disease: A qualitative case series

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-82
Author(s):  
Rebecca Davies ◽  
Felicity A Baker ◽  
Jeanette Tamplin ◽  
Eleanor Bajo ◽  
Karen Bolger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Neuron ◽  
Motor Neuron Disease ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

The Effect of Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation on Respiratory and Inflammatory Parameters in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Hashemian ◽  
Atefeh Fakharian ◽  
Reyhaneh Zahiri ◽  
Esmaeil Mortaz ◽  
Mohammad Reza Masjedi
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
The Third ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Background: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is an airway obstructive disease that is often caused by smoking. The disease is currently the third leading cause of death worldwide. The current therapeutic approach is based on Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) therapy, which can reduce mortality, the need for hospitalization in the intensive care unit, and to some extent therapeutic complications. Therefore, this study was performed to determine the effect of non-invasive ventilation along with routine treatments on respiratory markers, inflammation, and clinical status of patients with COPD. Methods: A total of 30 patients with COPD referred to Masih Daneshvari Hospital were divided into control and intervention groups. In the intervention group, 15 patients underwent non-invasive ventilation in addition to the usual treatments, and in the control group, the patients underwent only the usual treatments. After completing the mMRC (Modified Medical Research Council) questionnaire and evaluating FEV1 (Forced Expiratory Value in one score), 5 ml of blood samples were taken from these patients at the beginning of the study, on the seventh to tenth day, and also in the third month, and the results of this evaluation were compared between the two groups. Results: Based on the results of this study, the mMRC score of the intervention group was significantly lower than the control group in the first week (p=0.043) and three months after treatment (p=0.049). However, indices such as FEV1, and IL-8(Interleukin-8) did not change significantly in both groups. Conclusion: The use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation along with standard treatments can play a relative role in improving patient outcomes.

scholarly journals Extracorporeal CO2 Removal in Acute Exacerbation of COPD Not Responding to Non-Invasive Ventilation: a Single Center Experience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathilde Azzi ◽  
Jerome Aboab ◽  
Sophie Alviset ◽  
Daria Ushmorova ◽  
Luis Ferreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Exacerbation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Copd Patients ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Control ◽  
Mean Time

Abstract Background: Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ae-COPD) has a gold standard treatment: non-invasive ventilation (NIV). However, this treatment sometime fails, and an invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is required. The extracorporeal CO₂ removal (ECCO₂R) device can be an alternative to intubation. The aim of the study is to evaluate ECCO₂R efficiency and safety and enlighten ECCO₂R benefit/risk compared to IMV.Methods: Consecutive ae-COPD patients for whom NIV failed were retrospectively analyzed during two periods: before and after the ECCO₂R device implementation in our ICU in 2015. We considered the before period as standard of care and patients were treated with IMV. The ECCO₂R device was a pump-driven veno-venous system (Xenios AG).Results: The two groups (ECCO₂R n = 26 and Control group n = 25) were comparable at baseline except for the BMI which was significantly higher in the ECCO₂R group (30kg/m² versus 25kg/m²). The pH and PaCO₂ improved significantly in both groups. The mean time on ECCO₂R was 5,4 days whereas IMV lasted 27 days in the control group. Four patients needed IMV in the ECCO₂R group (of which 3 occurred after ECCO₂R weaning). There were 7 major bleeding events with ECCO₂R and 3 led to premature termination of ECCO₂R. In the control group, there were 8 ventilator associated pneumonia, 25 haemodynamic instability and 6 self extubations. The mean time in ICU and hospital stay in the ECCO₂R and control groups were 18 vs 30 days, 29 vs 49 days, respectively and the 90-day mortality rates were 15% vs 28%.Conclusions: ECCO₂R brings significant improvement on pH and PaCO₂ in ae-COPD patients failing NIV therapy and permit to avoid intubation in 85% with low complication rates compared to IMV. These results have yet to be proven in a larger randomized study.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04882410. Date of registration May 12th 2021, Retrospectively registered.https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04882410

scholarly journals Effect of Pulmonary Rehabilitation on Patients’Outcome After Extubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Zhao ◽  
Qingyun Yang ◽  
Ruochen Wen ◽  
Xingshuo Hu ◽  
Hongjun Gu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Diaphragm Thickness ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Abstract Background: To evaluate whether pulmonary rehabilitation can improve respiratory function and life quality of the patients who were removed from invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU and sequentially treated with high-flow humidification therapy instrument. Methods: This study is a single-center clinical randomized controlled trial. Selected from April 2019 to April 2020, 53 patients who were sequentially treated with High-Flow Humidification Device after extubation in the ICU were randomly divided into two groups. The experimental group received pulmonary rehabilitation treatment, while the control group received only conventional treatment. All patients were then evaluated for rehabilitation and bedside diaphragm ultrasound measurement.Results: Compared with the control group, experimental group’s incidences of non-invasive ventilation use, re-intubation and complication were significantly reduced (P <0.05), yet there was no significant reduction of two groups’ mortality rate (P = 0.3). The experimental group's MRCsum (Medical Research Council sum) muscle strength score, 30-second sit-up test parameter, and modified Barthel index all presented significant difference (P <0.05). The degree of diaphragm movement, end-inspiratory diaphragm thickness and diaphragm thickness variation rate were significantly increased (P <0.05). Conclusions: Pulmonary rehabilitation is safe with certain efficacy. It is of great significance to the enhancement of patient's peripheral muscle strength and endurance, respiratory function, and daily life activities. It can reduce the incidences of non-invasive ventilation use and re-intubation and help patients return to their families and society better. Nevertheless, the current development of pulmonary rehabilitation is not perfect. Subsequent research of a multi-center randomized controlled trial should be conducted to further explore the efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation, promote the spread of pulmonary rehabilitation technics, and provide home-based rehabilitation guidance and long-term follow-up for discharged ICU patients.Trial registration: Clinical trial registration number: NCT04368286; Ethics number: S2018-212-01.Subject: ①Number: 2018FC-WJFWZX-2-04. ②Chinese PLA Health Care Grant: 17BJZ35.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document