Successful Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Postpartum as Rescue Therapy in a Woman With COVID-19

Clinical manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant women, in contrast to previous outbreaks, seem to be similar to those of nonpregnant women. During severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS influenza A, and Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreaks, an increased severity of disease among pregnant women was observed. In some pregnant women, respiratory failure can occur and progress quickly to acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a rescue therapy. Despite a lack of current guidelines on the use of ECMO in pregnant or postpartum women, this support therapy is an effective salvage therapy for patients with cardiac and/or respiratory failure, and is associated with favorable maternal and fetal outcomes. Herein, the authors report a case of severe COVID-19 disease in a pregnant patient after urgent cesarean delivery, who was treated successfully with ECMO during the postpartum. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered early when conventional therapy is ineffective, and it is essential to refer to ECMO expert centers

Environmentally persistent free radicals decrease cardiac function before and after ischemia/reperfusion injury in vivo

Exposure to airborne particles is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. During the combustion of chlorine-containing hazardous materials and fuels, chlorinated hydrocarbons chemisorb to the surface of transition metal-oxide-containing particles, reduce the metal, and form an organic free radical. These radical-particle systems can survive in the environment for days and are called environmentally persistent free radicals (EPFRs). This study determined whether EPFRs could decrease left ventricular function before and after ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) in vivo. Male Brown Norway rats were dosed (8 mg/kg, i.t.) 24 hr prior to testing with particles containing the EPFR of 1, 2-dichlorobenzene (DCB230). DCB230 treatment decreased systolic and diastolic function. DCB230 also produced pulmonary and cardiac inflammation. After ischemia, systolic, but not diastolic function was significantly decreased in DCB230-treated rats. Ventricular function was not affected by I/R in control rats. There was greater oxidative stress in the heart and increased 8-isoprostane (biomarker of oxidative stress) in the plasma of treated vs control rats after I/R. These data demonstrate for the first time that DCB230 can produce inflammation and significantly decrease cardiac function at baseline and after I/R in vivo. Furthermore, these data suggest that EPFRs may be a risk factor for cardiac toxicity in healthy individuals and individuals with ischemic heart disease. Potential mechanisms involving cytokines/chemokines and/or oxidative stress are discussed

Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the incidence of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections: a European multicenter cohort study

Purpose: Although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection have several risk factors for ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI), the reported incidence of hospital-acquired infections is low. We aimed to determine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, and the incidence of VA-LRTI. Methods: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation > 48 h were eligible if they had: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection at ICU admission. VA-LRTI, including ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), were diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. All VA-LRTI were prospectively identified, and chest-X rays were analyzed by at least two physicians. Cumulative incidence of first episodes of VA-LRTI was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, and compared using Fine-and Gray models. Results: 1576 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2, 482 in influenza, and 526 in no viral infection groups). VA-LRTI incidence was significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 patients (287, 50.5%), as compared to influenza patients (146, 30.3%, adjusted sub hazard ratio (sHR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.04)) or patients with no viral infection (133, 25.3%, adjusted sHR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.39)). Gram-negative bacilli were responsible for a large proportion (82% to 89.7%) of VA-LRTI, mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp. Conclusions: The incidence of VA-LRTI is significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection after statistical adjustment, but residual confounding may still play a role in the effect estimates. © 2021, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

Correction to: Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the incidence of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections: a European multicenter cohort study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 2, (188-198), 10.1007/s00134-020-06323-9)

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in Table 1. The correct numbers are given hereafter. Men: 407/568 (71.7) in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia group, 298/482 (61.8) in Influenza pneumonia group, and 353/524 (67.4) in no viral infection. The authors apologize. © 2021 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

Effects of Standard-Dose Prophylactic, High-Dose Prophylactic, and Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients With Hypoxemic COVID-19 Pneumonia The ANTICOVID Randomized Clinical Trial

International audienceIMPORTANCE Given the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative. OBJECTIVES To determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS The ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death). RESULTS Among the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95%CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7%[95%CI, 45.2%to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95%CI, 43.4%to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95%CI, 41.7%to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5%[95%CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95%CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2%thrombosis, 2.6%bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5%thrombosis, 3.6%bleeding, 11.8%death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7%death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95%CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95%CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95%CI -2.6 to -24.3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PAnor TAuse improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemicCOVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis