Influence of low-flow time on survival after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR)

Abstract Background Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support under extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is the last option and may be offered to selected patients. Several factors predict outcome in these patients, including initial heart rhythm, comorbidities, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We evaluated outcomes of all VA-ECMO patients treated within the last 5 years at our center in respect to low-flow duration during CPR. Methods We report retrospective registry data on all patients with eCPR treated at a university hospital between October 2010 and May 2016. Results A total of 133 patients (mean age 58.7 ± 2.6 years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II score at admission 48.1 ± 3.4) were included in the analysis. The indication for eCPR was either in-hospital or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without return of spontaneous circulation (n = 74 and 59, respectively). There was a significant difference in survival rates between groups (eCPR in-hospital cardiac arrest [IHCA] 18.9%, eCPR out-of-hospital cardiac arrest [OHCA] 8.5%; p < 0.042). Mean low-flow duration (i.e., duration of mechanical CPR until VA-ECMO support) was 59.6 ± 5.0 minutes in all patients and significantly shorter in IHCA patients than in OHCA patients (49.6 ± 5.9 vs. 72.2 ± 7.4 minutes, p = 0.001). Low-flow time strongly correlated with survival (p < 0.001) and was an independent predictor of mortality. Conclusions Time to full support is an important and alterable predictor of patient survival in eCPR, suggesting that VA-ECMO therapy should be established as fast as possible in the selected patients destined for eCPR

Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes with Extracorporeal Life Support Backup

Background. Left main PCI is superior to coronary bypass surgery in selected patients. Registry data, however, suggest significant early adverse event rates associated with unprotected left main PCI. We aimed to evaluate safety of an extracorporeal life support (ECLS) as backup system during PCI. Methods. We report a registry study of 16 high-risk patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes undergoing unprotected left main PCI with an ECLS backup. Results. Seven patients (43.8%) presented with an acute myocardial infarction while 9 patients (56.3%) had unstable angina. Unprotected left main PCI could be successfully performed in all 16 patients. Mortality or thromboembolic event rates were zero within the index hospital stay. General anesthesia was necessary only in 5 patients (31.3%). Access site bleeding requiring transfusion was encountered in 4 patients (25.0%). Three patients (18.8%) developed access site complications requiring surgical intervention. All patients were ECLS-free after 96 hours. Conclusions. Unprotected left main PCI could be safely and effectively performed after ECLS implantation as backup in acute coronary syndromes in our patient collectively. Vascular access site complications however need to be considered when applying ECLS as backup system

Therapy with lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine is associated with acute kidney injury in COVID-19 patients.

BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is an independent risk factor for mortality, which affects about 5% of hospitalized coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients and up to 25-29% of severely ill COVID-19 patients. Lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine show in vitro activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and have been used for the treatment of COVID-19. Both, lopinavir and hydroxychloroquine are metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4. The impact of a triple therapy with lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) on kidney function in COVID-19 is currently not known.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed both non-ICU and ICU patients with COVID-19 receiving triple therapy for the incidence of AKI. Patients receiving standard therapy served as a control group. All patients were hospitalized at the University Hospital of Freiburg, Germany, between March and April 2020. A matched-pair analysis for the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2 was performed to control for the severity of illness among non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients.ResultsIn non-ICU patients, the incidence of AKI was markedly increased following triple therapy (78.6% vs. 21.4% in controls, p = 0.002), while a high incidence of AKI was observed in both groups of ICU patients (triple therapy: 80.0%, control group: 90.5%). ICU patients treated with triple therapy showed a trend towards more oliguric or anuric kidney injury. We also observed a linear correlation between the duration of the triple therapy and the maximum serum creatinine level (p = 0.004, R2 = 0.276, R = 0.597).ConclusionTriple therapy is associated with an increase in the incidence of AKI in non-ICU COVID-19 patients. The underlying mechanisms may comprise a CYP3A4 enzyme interaction, and may be relevant for any future therapy combining hydroxychloroquine with antiviral agents

Comparison of different anticoagulation strategies for renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study

Background!#!Critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have a high risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) that requires renal replacement therapy (RRT). A state of hypercoagulability reduces circuit life spans. To maintain circuit patency and therapeutic efficiency, an optimized anticoagulation strategy is needed. This study investigates whether alternative anticoagulation strategies for RRT during COVID-19 are superior to administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH).!##!Methods!#!Retrospective cohort study on 71 critically ill COVID-19 patients (≥18 years), admitted to intensive care units at a tertiary health care facility in the southwestern part of Germany between February 26 and May 21, 2020. We collected data on the disease course, AKI, RRT, and thromboembolic events. Four different anticoagulatory regimens were administered. Anticoagulation during continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD) was performed with UFH or citrate. Anticoagulation during sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis (SLEDD) was performed with UFH, argatroban, or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Primary outcome is the effect of the anticoagulation regimen on mean treatment times of RRT.!##!Results!#!In patients receiving CVVHD, mean treatment time in the UFH group was 21.3 h (SEM: ±5.6 h), in the citrate group 45.6 h (SEM: ±2.7 h). Citrate anticoagulation significantly prolonged treatment times by 24.4 h (P = .001). In patients receiving SLEDD, mean treatment time with UFH was 8.1 h (SEM: ±1.3 h), with argatroban 8.0 h (SEM: ±0.9 h), and with LMWH 11.8 h (SEM: ±0.5 h). LMWH significantly prolonged treatment times by 3.7 h (P = .008) and 3.8 h (P = .002), respectively.!##!Conclusions!#!UFH fails to prevent early clotting events in the dialysis circuit during COVID-19. For patients, who do not require effective systemic anticoagulation, regional citrate dialysis is the most effective strategy. For patients, who require effective systemic anticoagulation, the usage of LMWH results in the longest circuit life spans. The proposed anticoagulatory strategies are safe, can easily be monitored, and allow an individualized treatment

Hemoadsorption eliminates remdesivir from the circulation: Implications for the treatment of COVID‐19

Abstract Both antiviral treatment with remdesivir and hemoadsorption using a CytoSorb® adsorption device are applied in the treatment of severe COVID‐19. The CytoSorb® adsorber consists of porous polymer beads that adsorb a broad range of molecules, including cytokines but also several therapeutic drugs. In this study, we evaluated whether remdesivir and its main active metabolite GS‐441524 would be adsorbed by CytoSorb®. Serum containing remdesivir or GS‐441524 was circulated in a custom‐made system containing a CytoSorb® device. Concentrations of remdesivir and GS‐441524 before and after the adsorber were analyzed by liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry. Measurements of remdesivir in the outgoing tube after the adsorber indicated almost complete removal of remdesivir by the device. In the reservoir, concentration of remdesivir showed an exponential decay and was not longer detectable after 60 mins. GS‐441524 showed a similar exponential decay but, unlike remdesivir, it reached an adsorption–desorption equilibrium at ~48 µg/L. Remdesivir and its main active metabolite GS‐441524 are rapidly eliminated from the perfusate by the CytoSorb® adsorber device in vitro. This should be considered in patients for whom both therapies are indicated, and simultaneous application should be avoided. In general, plasma levels of therapeutic drugs should be closely monitored under concurrent CytoSorb® therapy

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) versus No Antiplatelet Therapy and Incidence of Major Bleeding in Patients on Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

<div><p>Aims</p><p>Bleeding is a frequent complication in patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). An indication for dual antiplatelet therapy due to coronary stent implantation is present in a considerable number of these patients. The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate if dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) significantly increases the high intrinsic bleeding risk in patients on VA-ECMO.</p><p>Methods and Results</p><p>A total of 93 patients were treated with VA-ECMO between October 2010 and October 2013. Average time on VA-ECMO was 58.9 ± 1.7 hours. Dual antiplatelet therapy was given to 51.6% of all patients. Any bleeding was recorded in 60.2% of all patients. There was no difference in bleeding incidence in patients on DAPT when compared to those without any antiplatelet therapy including any bleeding (66.7% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.35), BARC3 bleeding (43.8% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.31) or pulmonary bleeding (16.7% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.77). This holds true after adjustment for confounders. Rate of transfusion of red blood cells were similar in patients with or without DAPT (35.4% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.488).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Bleeding on VA-ECMO is frequent. This registry recorded no statistical difference in bleeding in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy when compared to no antiplatelet therapy. When indicated, DAPT should not be withheld from VA ECMO patients.</p></div

Bleeding and transfusions.

<p>Bleeding and transfusions.</p