Search

Objectives: To compare heparin-based anticoagulation and bivalirudin-based anticoagulation within the context of critically ill patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Design: An observational study. Setting: At the intensive care unit of a university hospital. Participants and interventions: Critically ill patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving full anticoagulation with heparin or bivalirudin. Measurements and main results: Twenty-three patients received full anticoagulation with bivalirudin and 60 with heparin. Despite patients in the bivalirudin group having higher mortality risk scores (SAPS II 60 ± 16 v 39 ±7, p < 0.001) and a higher need for extracorporeal support compared to the heparin group, hospital mortality was comparable (57% v 45, p=0.3). No difference in thromboembolic complications was observed, and bleeding events were more frequent in patients treated with bivalirudin (65% v 40%, p=0.01). Similar results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing intravenous anticoagulation; in addition to comparable thrombotic complications occurrence and thrombocytopenia rate, however, no difference in the bleeding rate was observed (65% v 35%, p=0.08). Conclusions: Although heparin is the most used anticoagulant in the intensive care setting, bivalirudin-based anticoagulation was safe and effective in a cohort of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2. Bivalirudin may be given full consideration as an anticoagulation strategy for critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2, especially in those with thrombocytopenia and on extracorporeal support.

Objective To determine the incidence, predictors, and outcome of pneumothorax (PNX)/pneumomediastinum (PMD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Design Observational study. Setting Tertiary-care university hospital. Participants One hundred sixteen consecutive critically ill, invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Interventions The authors collected demographic, mechanical ventilation, imaging, laboratory, and outcome data. Primary outcome was the incidence of PNX/PMD. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of PNX/PMD. Measurements and Main Results PNX/PMD occurred in a total of 28 patients (24.1%), with 22 patients developing PNX (19.0%) and 13 developing PMD (11.2%). Mean time to development of PNX/PMD was 14 ± 11 days from intubation. The authors found no significant difference in mechanical ventilation parameters between patients who developed PNX/PMD and those who did not. Mechanical ventilation parameters were within recommended limits for protective ventilation in both groups. Ninety-five percent of patients with PNX/PMD had the Macklin effect (linear collections of air contiguous to the bronchovascular sheaths) on a baseline computed tomography scan, and tended to have a higher lung involvement at intensive care unit (ICU) admission (Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema score 32.2 ± 13.4 v 18.7 ± 9.8 in patients without PNX/PMD, p = 0.08). Time from symptom onset to intubation and time from total bilirubin on day two after ICU admission were the only independent predictors of PNX/PMD. Mortality was 60.7% in patients who developed PNX/PMD versus 38.6% in those who did not (p = 0.04). Conclusion PNX/PMD occurs frequently in COVID-19 patients with ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation, and is associated with increased mortality. Development of PNX/PMD seems to occur despite use of protective mechanical ventilation and has a radiologic predictor sign.

Objective: There is experimental evidence that phosphocreatine (PCr) can decrease ischemia/reperfusion injury of the heart. The authors investigated if PCr would improve heart performance as compared with standard treatment in cardiac surgery. Design: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Setting: Hospitals. Participants: Adult and pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Interventions: The ability of PCr to improve cardiac outcomes as compared with standard treatment was investigated. Measurements and Main Results: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANGFANG DATA, and VIP Paper Check System were searched to March 1 2017. The authors included 26 randomized controlled trials comprising 1,948 patients. Random and fixed-effects models were used to estimate odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). PCr use was associated with reduced rates of intraoperative inotropic support (27% v 44%; OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.61; p < 0.001), major arrhythmias (16% v 28%; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.69; p < 0.001), as well as increased spontaneous recovery of the cardiac rhythm immediately after aortic declamping (50% v 34%; OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.82-3.30; p < 0.001) as compared with standard treatment. The use of PCr decreased myocardial damage and augmented left ventricular ejection fraction in the postoperative period; however, MD for these outcomes were small and do not seem to be clinically significant. Conclusions: In randomized trials, PCr administration was associated with reduced rates of intraoperative inotropic support and major arrhythmias, and increased spontaneous recovery of the cardiac rhythm after aortic declamping. Large multicenter evidence is needed to validate these findings.