COVID-19 and Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Case Series, Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) profoundly impacts hemostasis and microvasculature. In the light of the dilemma between thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, in the present paper, we systematically investigate the prevalence, mortality, radiological subtypes, and clinical characteristics of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review of the literature by screening the PubMed database and included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and concomitant ICH. We performed a pooled analysis, including a prospectively collected cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients with ICH, as part of the PANDEMIC registry (Pooled Analysis of Neurologic Disorders Manifesting in Intensive Care of COVID-19). Results: Our literature review revealed a total of 217 citations. After the selection process, 79 studies and a total of 477 patients were included. The median age was 58.8 years. A total of 23.3% of patients experienced the critical stage of COVID-19, 62.7% of patients were on anticoagulation and 27.5% of the patients received ECMO. The prevalence of ICH was at 0.85% and the mortality at 52.18%, respectively. Conclusion: ICH in COVID-19 patients is rare, but it has a very poor prognosis. Different subtypes of ICH seen in COVID-19, support the assumption of heterogeneous and multifaceted pathomechanisms contributing to ICH in COVID-19. Further clinical and pathophysiological investigations are warranted to resolve the conflict between thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in the future

Sin / Sense

Sexto desafío por la erradicación de la violencia contra las mujeres del Institut Universitari d’Estudis Feministes i de Gènere «Purificación Escribano» de la Universitat Jaume

Toxicities of novel therapies for hematologic malignancies

Introduction: Over the last decade targeted therapies have transformed the treatment landscape for hematologic malignancies with >70 new or extended approvals by the FDA since 2010. Since many of these drugs are registered for multiple entities and >1/3 were approved in the last two years, treatment options in hematology are rapidly expanding. Despite the justified excitement around the often previously unseen emerging therapeutic potential, distinct side-effect profiles require vigilance and adequate management by patients and caregivers. Areas covered: This review provides a summary of the unique toxicity profiles of therapies for hematologic malignancies during the last decade with a focus on clinical implications and applicability. Due to the already wide implementation in common practice or an immense potential thereof selected treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, various monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapies are discussed in detail. Challenges and potential strategies to assess and manage real-world toxicity after drug approval are addressed. Expert opinion: The rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape of hematologic malignancies comes with a broad spectrum of side effects which are distinct from conventional hematotoxicity and require alertness

Batten down the hatches: CAR T-cells - immuno-oncology meets intensive care medicine

CAR T-cell treatment has brought a significant benefit for patients with relapsed and refractory lymphoma and even long lasting remissions seem to be possible. Despite the good results CAR T-cell treatment is associated with severe and potentially life-threatening adverse effects. Patients regularly develop Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) after the transfusion of CAR T-cells. In addition to these immunological reactions patients can develop severe and life-threatening infections and other related adverse effects. Due to the increasing number of patients receiving CAR T-cells and the upcoming clinical trials more and more patients will potentially require intensive care treatment for the adverse effects after CAR T-cell treatment. The management of these patients requires an extensive diagnostic workup and complex treatment. An interdisciplinary team of hematologist, intensivist and others like neurologist and palliative medicine consultants is crucial for the best treatment of these patients. Together with the increasing number of patients this can lead to logistical issues for the intensive care departments of centers offering CAR T-cell therapies

Plasma exchange with COVID-19 convalescent plasma in a patient with severe ANCA-associated vasculitis and COVID-19 pneumonia after rituximab therapy

The combination of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and pulmonary-renal syndrome due to ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) poses diagnostic uncertainty and a therapeutic dilemma. According to current limited knowledge of COVID-19, the application of commonly used drugs in AAV, cyclophosphamide (CYC) and rituximab (RTX), must be weighed carefully in active COVID-19 infection. We report a case of a 52-year-old male patient with concurrent severe COVID-19 pneumonia and acute relapse of pulmonary-renal syndrome due to AAV after recent RTX maintenance dose. The patient presented with severe hypoxaemia, complete B-cell depletion and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viraemia. He was successfully treated with therapeutic plasma exchange employing COVID-19 convalescent plasma

Interdisciplinary and interprofessional communication in intensive and emergency care

Background Due to acuteness, time constraints, and psychological pressure as well as changing team compositions, professional communication constitutes a key challenge in the treatment of critically ill patients. Objectives The aim of this narrative review is to present the current literature on clinical relevance and current developments of interdisciplinary and interprofessional communication in intensive care and emergency medicine. Results Effective communication is of great importance in intensive care and emergency medicine, both for ensuring high-quality patient care and work satisfaction as well as mental health of the medical practitioners. Most conflicts occur between the medical and nursing staff, with communicative conflicts predominantly being related to discussions about the patient's prognosis and end-of-life decision-making. Structural measures such as regular team meetings and trainings seem suitable to specifically improve communication. However, the topic is commonly inadequately represented in everyday clinical practice as well as in research. Conclusions Even though the importance of interprofessional and interdisciplinary communication for high-quality patient care and workload reduction is increasingly being recognized, its routine application in everyday clinical practice is still scarce, particularly in intensive care and emergency medicine. Due to the specific structure and patient population of these fields of patient care, they can benefit more than other specialties from targeted measures to improve communication