Arik Schulze

Sedation techniques in interventional flexible bronchoscopy and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial-needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are inconsistent and the evidence for required general anesthesia under full anesthesiologic involvement is scarce. Moreover, we faced the challenge of providing bronchoscopic care with limited personnel. Hence, we retrospectively identified 513 patients that underwent flexible interventional bronchoscopy and/or EBUS-TBNA out of our institution between January 2020 and August 2022 to evaluate our deep analgosedation approach based on pethidine/meperidine bolus plus continuous flow adjusted propofol, the bronchoscopist-directed continuous flow propofol based analgosedation (BDcfP) in a two-personnel setting. Consequently, 502 out of 513 patients received BDcfP for analgosedation. We identified cardiovascular comorbidities, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and arterial hypertension as risk factors for periprocedural hypotension. Propofol flow rate did not correlate with hypotension. Theodrenaline and cafedrine might be used to treat periprocedural hypotension. Moreover, midazolam might be used to support the sedative effect. In conclusion, BDcfP is a safe and feasible sedative approach during interventional flexible bronchoscopy and EBUS-TBNA. In general, after the implementation of safety measures, EBUS-TBNA and interventional flexible bronchoscopy via BDcfP might safely be performed even with limited personnel.

Background. Following COVID-19, patients often present with ongoing symptoms comparable to chronic fatigue and subjective deterioration of exercise capacity (EC), which has been recently described as postacute COVID-19 syndrome. Objective. To objectify the reduced EC after COVID-19 and to evaluate for pathologic limitations. Methods. Thirty patients with subjective limitation of EC performed cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). If objectively limited in EC or deteriorated in oxygen pulse, we offered cardiac stress magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a follow-up CPET. Results. Eighteen male and 12 female patients were included. Limited relative EC was detected in 11/30 (36.7%) patients. Limitation correlated with reduced body weight-indexed peak oxygen (O2) uptake (peakV̇O2/kg) (mean 74.7 (±7.1) % vs. 103.6 (±14.9) %, p < 0.001 ). Reduced peakV̇O2/kg was found in 18/30 (60.0%) patients with limited EC. Patients with reduced EC widely presented an impaired maximum O2 pulse (75.7% (±5.6) vs. 106.8% (±13.9), p < 0.001 ). Abnormal gas exchange was absent in all limited EC patients. Moreover, no patient showed signs of reduced pulmonary perfusion. Using cardiac MRI, diminished biventricular ejection fraction was ruled out in 16 patients as a possible cause for reduced O2 pulse. Despite noncontrolled training exercises, follow-up CPET did not reveal any exercise improvements. Conclusions. Deterioration of EC was not associated with ventilatory or pulmonary vascular limitation. Exercise limitation was related to both reduced O2 pulse and peakV̇O2/kg, which, however, did not correlate with the initial severity of COVID-19. We hypothesize that impaired microcirculation or limited peripheral O2 utilization might be causative for prolonged deterioration of EC following acute COVID-19 infection.