RESUMO
Background & objectives: The high mortality associated with the thrombotic events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients resulted in the usage of anticoagulants in varying doses. Whether high-dose anticoagulants have led to better outcomes or higher incidence of clinically significant bleeding events is debatable. Thus, this study was conducted to find the incidence of clinically significant bleeding events in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) patients on therapeutic anticoagulation and their outcomes. Methods: In this retrospective, single-centre study of 155 critically ill COVID-19 patients, the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was observed. Multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association between anticoagulant regimen, coagulation and inflammatory markers with the incidence of bleeding and thrombotic events. Results: The incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding was 33.54 per cent (26.17-41.46%) and major bleeding was 9.03 per cent (5.02-14.69%). The anticoagulation intensity at baseline had a high odds of major bleeding when enoxaparin and dual antiplatelet therapy were used together [adjusted odds ratio OR of 434.09 (3.81-49502.95), P<0.05]. At admission, bleeders had a poorer PaO2/FiO2 ratio with more patients on invasive ventilation. At the time of bleeding, the bleeders had a higher D-dimer, ferritin, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin compared to non-bleeders. The subhazard ratio for death in bleeders was 3.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.97-5.65; P<0.001). Interpretation & conclusions: The incidence of bleeding in critically ill COVID-19 patients on therapeutic anticoagulation may increase with the severity of the disease as well as with concurrent use of dual antiplatelets. Major bleeding may also contribute to higher mortality.
RESUMO
Background:Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication after on pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and is associated with a poor prognosis. Postoperative AKI is associated with morbidity, mortality, and increase in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and increases the financial burden. Identifying individuals at risk for developing AKI in postoperative period is extremely important to optimize outcomes. The aim of the study is to evaluate the association between the intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) derived renal resistive index (RRI) and AKI in patients undergoing on?pump CABG surgery. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted in patients more than 18 years of age undergoing elective on pump CABG surgery between July 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, at a tertiary care center. All preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were recorded. TEE measurement was performed in hemodynamically stable patients before the sternum was opened. Postoperative AKI was diagnosed based on the serial measurement of serum creatinine and the monitoring of urine output. Results: A total of 115 patients were included in our study. Thirty?nine (33.91%) patients had RRI >0.7 while remaining seventy?six (66.08%) patients had RRI <0.7. AKI was diagnosed in 26% (30/115) patients. AKI rates were significantly higher in patients with RRI values exceeding 0.7 with 46.15% (18/39) compared to 15.75% (12/76) in RRI values of less than 0.7. Multivariate analysis revealed that AKI was associated with an increase in RRI and diabetes mellitus. The RRI assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC) to distinguish between non?AKI and AKI groups were 0.705 (95% CI: 0.588–0.826) for preoperative RRI. The most accurate cut?off value to distinguish non?AKI and AKI groups was a preoperative RRI of 0.68 with a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 67%. Conclusions: An increased intraoperative RRI is an independent predictor of AKI in the postoperative period in patients undergoing CABG surgery. The cutoff value of TEE?derived RRI in the intraoperative period should be >0.68 to predict AKI in the postoperative period.
RESUMO
Background & objectives: Standard donor lung preservation with cold flush and storage allows up to six hours between retrieval of lungs from the donor and transplantation in the recipient. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) systems mimic physiological ventilation and perfusion in the donor lungs with potential for prolonged lung preservation and donor lung reconditioning. In this study, it was aimed to perform EVLP on discarded donor lungs using a locally developed EVLP system. Methods: Equipment that are routinely used for cardiac surgeries were collected and a functional EVLP system was assembled. This system was used on five pairs of lungs retrieved from brain-dead organ donors. The lungs were ventilated and pulmonary circulation was continuously perfused with a solution containing oxygen and nutrients for four hours. The system was tested without red blood cells (RBCs) added to the solution (acellular group; n=3; A1, A2 and A3) and also with RBCs added to the solution (cellular group; n=2; C1 and C2). Results: The EVLP system was successfully used in four (A1, A2, A3 and C2) of the five lung pairs. Mechanical and gas exchange functions of the lungs were preserved in these lung pairs. One lung pair (C1) worsened and developed pulmonary oedema. Histopathological examination of all five lung pairs was satisfactory at the end of the procedure. Major challenges faced were leakage of solution from the system and obstruction to drainage of RBCs containing solution from the lungs. Interpretation & conclusions: The results of the present study suggest that, it is possible to maintain the lungs retrieved for transplantation in a physiological condition using a locally prepared EVLP system and a solution without RBCs.
RESUMO
Background & objectives: The safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine is a cause of concern for many who have been vaccinated. The people have multiple concerns and fear regarding the adverse events of the vaccine. Thus, this study was undertaken to establish the safety profile of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine (Recombinant) among the healthcare professionals. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey. After taking clearance from the institutional ethics committee 1500 healthcare professionals, who had their vaccination in the past two weeks were selected. They were provided with an online survey proforma regarding adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) of COVID-19 vaccine developed using google forms with an informed consent form affixed to it. Results: A total of 1036 individuals participated in the study. The mean and median (inter quartile range) age of the participants was 37.7 ±11.25 and 35 (29-46) yr, respectively. Of these, 52.1 per cent were female, 29.3 per cent were doctors, 33.4 per cent were nurses and 9.5 per cent were paramedical staff. Forty six per cent participants experienced one or more minor AEFIs such as pain, tenderness, redness, etc. at the injection site. Fatigue (31.75%), generalized feeling of unwell (28.57%), muscle pain (23.16%) and fever (21.71%) were the most commonly reported systemic AEFIs followed by headache (20.07%), dizziness (10.03%) and joint pains (15.25%). Most of them experienced these AEFIs within 24 h of the first dose of administration. About 42 per cent of the participants took oral antipyretics/analgesics for managing the AEFIs. Interpretation & conclusions: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Corona Virus Vaccine was found to be associated with mild local and systemic AEFIs that were more common after the first dose as compared to the second dose. There adverse events could be dealt with oral over-the-counter medications, with no requirement of hospitalization
RESUMO
Background: Although hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) lacks benefit in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, its role in asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic disease needs better elucidation. Methods: This multi-centre cohort study included asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic, RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases between 30 March and 20 May, 2020. Patients were categorized into two groups (HCQ-treated and untreated) based on exposure to HCQ. Dose of HCQ used was 400 mg twice daily (day one) followed by once daily for seven days. HCQ-untreated patients were managed supportively without any active antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy.h Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 clearance by RT-PCR (primary outcome) was compared between HCQ-treated and untreated patients using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional-hazards regression. Clinical efficacy and safety profile of HCQ were assessed (secondary outcomes). Results:162 patients [84 (51·9%) males; mean age 38·2 (15·2) years] were included. Forty-four (27·2%) patients had mild disease, rest 118 (72·8%) were asymptomatic. Seventy-five (46·3%) patients received HCQ. Median time to virological negativity was lesser in HCQ-treated (13 days) versus untreated patients (15 days) (log- rank<0·001) in both asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients. Treatment with HCQ was the only independent predictor of virological negativity (hazard- ratio=2·24; adjusted p-value<0·001). Two (5·4%) mildly symptomatic patients progressed to severe disease within 24 hours (two doses) of HCQ initiation, compared to none in the HCQ-untreated group. Five HCQ-treated patients developed minor gastrointestinal side effects, not requiring drug discontinuation. Conclusion: HCQ reduced the time to virologic negativity (by 2 days) in asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic COVID-19, without any serious adverse events. However, no obvious clinical benefit was noted.