Assay validity of point-of-care platelet function tests in thrombocytopenic blood samples

Point-of-care (POC) platelet function tests are faster and easier to perform than in-depth assessment by flow cytometry. At low platelet counts, however, POC tests are prone to assess platelet function incorrectly. Lower limits of platelet count required to obtain valid test results were defined and a testing method to facilitate comparability between different tests was established. We assessed platelet function in whole blood samples of healthy volunteers at decreasing platelet counts (> 100, 80-100, 50-80, 30-50 and < 30 x109/L) using two POC tests: impedance aggregometry and in-vitro bleeding time. Flow cytometry served as the gold standard. The number of platelets needed to reach 50% of the maximum function (ED50) and the lower reference limit (EDref) were calculated to define limits of test validity. The minimal platelet count required for reliable test results was 100 x109/L for impedance aggregometry and in-vitro bleeding time but only 30 x109/L for flow cytometry. Comparison of ED50 and EDref showed significantly lower values for flow cytometry than either POC test (P value < 0.05) but no difference between POC tests nor between the used platelet agonists within a test method. Calculating the ED50 and EDref provides an effective way to compare values from different platelet function assays. Flow cytometry enables correct platelet function testing as long as platelet count is > 30 x109/L whereas impedance aggregometry and in-vitro bleeding time are inconsistent unless platelet count is > 100 x109/L

Introducing patient and public involvement practices to healthcare research in Austria : strategies to promote change at multiple levels

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is well-established in the UK. However, it can be challenging to introduce PPI to research communities where there is limited prior knowledge, experience or appreciation of PPI. We aimed to explore current PPI practices, experiences and ethical and operational challenges with PPI within our own research community in Austria, to inform strategies for supporting PPI in Austria going forward. We surveyed scientists at 21 research institutes of the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (LBG) and representatives of 32 medical and university research ethics committees in Austria using online questionnaires. We analysed quantitative data using descriptive statistics, and we collated textual responses to open questions. We combined survey data with anecdotal evidence from our personal experience to summarise current challenges around implementing PPI in Austria. Nineteen scientists from nine research institutes indicated generally positive attitudes towards PPI. However, the majority reported they rarely or never involved patients and members of the public in roles of consultation, collaboration or control in research. Six of eight ethics committees were unfamiliar with PPI. We discern five current challenges to implementing PPI in Austria: lack of knowledge and skills for PPI among scientists, scepticism about the usefulness of PPI, conflation of PPI with qualitative research, uncertainty about ethical requirements for PPI and uncertainty about publishing PPI activities. We suggest that the provision of guidance about ethical requirements of PPI is a strategic priority. To address this, and following on from a recently introduced PPI training and grant scheme by the LBG, our surveys have initiated a dialogue with ethics committees and have informed the development of a checklist for ethical aspects of PPI. Our experiences may provide useful examples to others who seek to introduce or strengthen PPI practices within their own research communities. [Abstract copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Duration of invasive mechanical ventilation prior to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is not associated with survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by coronavirus disease 2019

BACKGROUND: Duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) prior to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) affects outcome in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related ARDS, the role of pre-ECMO IMV duration is unclear. This single-centre, retrospective study included critically ill adults treated with ECMO due to severe COVID-19-related ARDS between 01/2020 and 05/2021. The primary objective was to determine whether duration of IMV prior to ECMO cannulation influenced ICU mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 101 patients (mean age 56 [SD ± 10] years; 70 [69%] men; median RESP score 2 [IQR 1–4]) were treated with ECMO for COVID-19. Sixty patients (59%) survived to ICU discharge. Median ICU length of stay was 31 [IQR 20.7–51] days, median ECMO duration was 16.4 [IQR 8.7–27.7] days, and median time from intubation to ECMO start was 7.7 [IQR 3.6–12.5] days. Fifty-three (52%) patients had a pre-ECMO IMV duration of > 7 days. Pre-ECMO IMV duration had no effect on survival (p = 0.95). No significant difference in survival was found when patients with a pre-ECMO IMV duration of < 7 days (< 10 days) were compared to ≥ 7 days (≥ 10 days) (p = 0.59 and p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The role of prolonged pre-ECMO IMV duration as a contraindication for ECMO in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS should be scrutinised. Evaluation for ECMO should be assessed on an individual and patient-centred basis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-022-00980-3

The role of advance directives in end-of-life decisions in Austria: survey of intensive care physicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Currently, intensive care medicine strives to define a generally accepted way of dealing with end-of-life decisions, therapy limitation and therapy discontinuation.</p> <p>In 2006 a new advance directive legislation was enacted in Austria. Patients may now document their personal views regarding extension of treatment. The aim of this survey was to explore Austrian intensive care physicians' experiences with and their acceptance of the new advance directive legislation two years after enactment (2008).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Under the aegis of the OEGARI (Austrian Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Care) an anonymised questionnaire was sent to the medical directors of all intensive care units in Austria. The questions focused on the physicians' experiences regarding advance directives and their level of knowledge about the underlying legislation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 241 questionnaires sent and 139 were turned, which was a response rate of 58%. About one third of the responders reported having had no experience with advance directives and only 9 directors of intensive care units had dealt with more than 10 advance directives in the previous two years. Life-supporting measures, resuscitation, and mechanical ventilation were the predominantly refused therapies, wishes were mainly expressed concerning pain therapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A response rate of almost 60% proves the great interest of intensive care professionals in making patient-oriented end-of-life decisions. However, as long as patients do not make use of their right of co-determination, the enactment of the new law can be considered only a first important step forward.</p

Gamma-glutamyltransferase is a strong predictor of secondary sclerosing cholangitis after lung transplantation for COVID-19 ARDS

Background: Lung transplantation (LTx) can be considered for selected patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Secondary sclerosing cholangitis in critically ill (SSC-CIP) patients has been described as a late complication in COVID-19 ARDS survivors, however, rates of SSC-CIP after LTx and factors predicting this detrimental sequela are unknown. Methods: This retrospective analysis included all LTx performed for post-COVID ARDS at 8 European LTx centers between May 2020 and January 2022. Clinical risk factors for SSC-CIP were analyzed over time. Prediction of SSC-CIP was assessed by ROC-analysis. Results: A total of 40 patients were included in the analysis. Fifteen patients (37.5%) developed SSC-CIP. GGT at the time of listing was significantly higher in patients who developed SSC-CIP (median 661 (IQR 324-871) vs 186 (109-346); p = 0.001). Moreover, higher peak values for GGT (585 vs 128.4; p < 0.001) and ALP (325 vs 160.2; p = 0.015) were found in the ‘SSC’ group during the waiting period. Both, GGT at the time of listing and peak GGT during the waiting time, could predict SSC-CIP with an AUC of 0.797 (95% CI: 0.647-0.947) and 0.851 (95% CI: 0.707-0.995). Survival of ‘SSC’ patients was severely impaired compared to ‘no SSC’ patients (1-year: 46.7% vs 90.2%, log-rank p = 0.004). Conclusions: SSC-CIP is a severe late complication after LTx for COVID-19 ARDS leading to significant morbidity and mortality. GGT appears to be a sensitive parameter able to predict SSC-CIP even at the time of listing

Clinical relevance of lung transplantation for COVID-19 ARDS: a nationwide study

BACKGROUND: Although the number of lung transplantations (LTx) performed worldwide for COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still low, there is general agreement that this treatment can save a subgroup of most severly ill patients with irreversible lung damage. However, the true proportion of patients eligible for LTx, the overall outcome and the impact of LTx to the pandemic are unknown. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using a nationwide registry of hospitalised patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection admitted between January 1, 2020 and May 30, 2021 in Austria. Patients referred to one of the two Austrian LTx centers were analyzed and grouped into patients accepted and rejected for LTx. Detailed outcome analysis was performed for all patients who received a LTx for post-COVID-19 ARDS and compared to patients who underwent LTx for other indications. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2020 and May 30, 2021, 39.485 patients were hospitalised for COVID-19 in Austria. 2323 required mechanical ventilation, 183 received extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. 106 patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS were referred for LTx. Of these, 19 (18%) underwent LTx. 30-day mortality after LTx was 0% for COVID-19 ARDS transplant recipients. With a median follow-up of 134 (47–450) days, 14/19 patients are alive. CONCLUSIONS: Early referral of ECMO patients to a LTx center is pivotal in order to select patients eligible for LTx. Transplantation offers excellent midterm outcomes and should be incorporated in the treatment algorithm of post-COVID-19 ARDS

The promise of digital healthcare technologies

Digital health technologies have been in use for many years in a wide spectrum of healthcare scenarios. This narrative review outlines the current use and the future strategies and significance of digital health technologies in modern healthcare applications. It covers the current state of the scientific field (delineating major strengths, limitations, and applications) and envisions the future impact of relevant emerging key technologies. Furthermore, we attempt to provide recommendations for innovative approaches that would accelerate and benefit the research, translation and utilization of digital health technologies

Impacts of biomedical hashtag-based Twitter campaign: #DHPSP utilization for promotion of open innovation in digital health, patient safety, and personalized medicine

The open innovation hub Digital Health and Patient Safety Platform (DHPSP) was recently established with the purpose to invigorate collaborative scientific research and the development of new digital products and personalized solutions aiming to improve human health and patient safety. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a Twitter-based campaign centered on using the hashtag #DHPSP to promote the visibility of the DHPSP initiative. Thus, tweets containing #DHPSP were monitored for five weeks for the period 20.10.2020–24.11.2020 and were analyzed with Symplur Signals (social media analytics tool). In the study period, a total of 11,005 tweets containing #DHPSP were posted by 3020 Twitter users, generating 151,984,378 impressions. Analysis of the healthcare stakeholder-identity of the Twitter users who used #DHPSP revealed that the most of participating user accounts belonged to individuals or doctors, with the top three user locations being the United States (501 users), the United Kingdom (155 users), and India (121 users). Analysis of co-occurring hashtags and the full text of the posted tweets further revealed that the major themes of attention in the #DHPSP Twitter-community were related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), medicine and health, digital health technologies, and science communication in general. Overall, these results indicate that the #DHPSP initiative achieved high visibility and engaged a large body of Twitter users interested in the DHPSP focus area. Moreover, the conducted campaign resulted in an increase of DHPSP member enrollments and website visitors, and new scientific collaborations were formed. Thus, Twitter campaigns centered on a dedicated hashtag prove to be a highly efficient tool for visibility-promotion, which could be successfully utilized by healthcare-related open innovation platforms or initiatives