Evidence Hub

Clinical characteristics of pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in mechanical ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a case series

Yohei Ide, N. Urushibata, Wataru Takayama, Kenichi Hondo, Junichi Aiboshi, Yasuhiro Otomo

Journal of Medical Case Reports, 2024

165 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background Pneumothorax (PTX) and pneumomediastinum (PM) have been reported as potential complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, their risk factors and etiology remain unknown. Herein, we investigated the clinical characteristics of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 with PTX or PM. Methods We examined patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation who were admitted to the intensive care unit of a tertiary-level emergency medical center in Tokyo, Japan between April 1, 2020. and October 31, 2021. We collected and analyzed the clinical characteristics of the patients who presented with either PTX or PM during mechanical ventilation. Results During the study period, a total of 165 patients required mechanical ventilation, and 15 patients with PTX/PM during mechanical ventilation were selected. Three patients with obvious causes were excluded, and the remaining 12 patients were analyzed (7.3%). The mortality rate in these patients was as high as 50%, demonstrating the difficulty of treatment in the presence of PTX/PM. PTX/PM occurred 14.5 days after intubation. A peak pressure of > 30 cmH_2O was only apparent in one patient, suggesting that high positive pressure ventilation may be less involved than mentioned in the literature. In addition, the inspiratory effort was not strong in our group of patients. (P0.1 was 2.1 cm H2O [1.0–3.8]). Conclusion Various factors are associated with the development of PTX/PM in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 165 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free