HIGH HEPARANASE LEVEL IN SURVIVORS OF COVID-19 - INDICATOR OF VASCULAR AND PULMONARY RECOVERY?

ABSTRACT: Background: Severe progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes respiratory failure and critical illness. Recently, COVID-19 has been associated with heparanase (HPSE)-induced endothelial barrier dysfunction and inflammation, so called endothelitis, and therapeutic treatment with heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) targeting HPSE has been postulated. Because, up to this date, clinicians are unable to measure the severity of endothelitis, which can lead to multiorgan failure and concomitant death, we investigated plasma levels of HPSE and heparin-binding protein (HBP) in COVID-19 intensive care patients to render a possible link between endothelitis and these plasma parameters. Therefore, a prospective prolonged cohort study was conducted, including 47 COVID-19 patients from the intensive care unit. Plasma levels of HPSE, and HBP were measured daily by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in survivors (n = 35) and nonsurvivors (n = 12) of COVID-19 from admission until discharge or death. All patients were either treated with heparin or LMWH, aiming for an activated partial thromboplastin time of ≥60 seconds or an anti-Xa level of >0.8 IU/mL using enoxaparin, depending on the clinical status of the patient (patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or >0.1 µg/kg/min noradrenaline received heparin, all others enoxaparin). Results: We found significantly higher plasma levels of HPSE and HBP in survivors and nonsurvivors of COVID-19, compared with healthy controls. Still, interestingly, plasma HPSE levels were significantly higher ( P < 0.001) in survivors compared with nonsurvivors of COVID-19. In contrast, plasma HBP levels were significantly reduced ( P < 0.001) in survivors compared with nonsurvivors of COVID-19. Furthermore, when patients received heparin, they had significantly lower HPSE ( P = 2.22 e - 16) and significantly higher HBP ( P = 0.00013) plasma levels as when they received LMWH. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that patients, who recover from COVID-19-induced vascular and pulmonary damage and were discharged from the intensive care unit, have significantly higher plasma HPSE level than patients who succumb to COVID-19. Therefore, HPSE is not suitable as marker for disease severity in COVID-19 but maybe as marker for patient's recovery. In addition, patients receiving therapeutic heparin treatment displayed significantly lower heparanse plasma level than upon therapeutic treatment with LMWH.

Prevalence of acute neurological complications and pathological neuroimaging findings in critically ill COVID-19 patients with and without VV-ECMO treatment.

Acute brain injuries such as intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and ischemic stroke have been reported in critically ill COVID-19 patients as well as in patients treated with veno-venous (VV)-ECMO independently of their COVID-19 status. The purpose of this study was to compare critically ill COVID-19 patients with and without VV-ECMO treatment with regard to acute neurological symptoms, pathological neuroimaging findings (PNIF) and long-term deficits. The single center study was conducted in critically ill COVID-19 patients between February 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021. Demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters were extracted from the hospital's databases. Retrospective imaging modalities included head computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Follow-up MRI and neurological examinations were performed on survivors > 6 months after the primary occurrence. Of the 440 patients, 67 patients received VV-ECMO treatment (15%). Sixty-four patients (24 with VV-ECMO) developed acute neurological symptoms (pathological levels of arousal/brain stem function/motor responses) during their ICU stay and underwent neuroimaging with brain CT as the primary modality. Critically ill COVID-19 patients who received VV-ECMO treatment had a significantly lower survival during their hospital stay compared to those without (p < 0.001). Among patients treated with VV-ECMO, 10% showed acute PNIF in one of the imaging modalities during their ICU stay (vs. 4% of patients in the overall COVID-19 ICU cohort). Furthermore, 9% showed primary or secondary ICH of any severity (vs. 3% overall), 6% exhibited severe ICH (vs. 1% overall) and 1.5% were found to have non-hemorrhagic cerebral infarctions (vs. < 1% overall). There was a weak, positive correlation between patients treated with VV-ECMO and the development of acute neurological symptoms. However, the association between the VV-ECMO treatment and acute PNIF was negligible. Two survivors (one with VV-ECMO-treatment/one without) showed innumerable microhemorrhages, predominantly involving the juxtacortical white matter. None of the survivors exhibited diffuse leukoencephalopathy. Every seventh COVID-19 patient developed acute neurological symptoms during their ICU stay, but only every twenty-fifth patient had PNIF which were mostly ICH. VV-ECMO was found to be a weak risk factor for neurological complications (resulting in a higher imaging rate), but not for PNIF. Although logistically complex, repeated neuroimaging should, thus, be considered in all critically ill COVID-19 patients since ICH may have an impact on the treatment decisions and outcomes.

Association of mortality and early tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective analysis.

COVID-19 adds to the complexity of optimal timing for tracheostomy. Over the course of this pandemic, and expanded knowledge of the disease, many centers have changed their operating procedures and performed an early tracheostomy. We studied the data on early and delayed tracheostomy regarding patient outcome such as mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all tracheostomies at our institution in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from March 2020 to June 2021. Time from intubation to tracheostomy and mortality of early (≤ 10 days) vs. late (> 10 days) tracheostomy were the primary objectives of this study. We used mixed cox-regression models to calculate the effect of distinct variables on events. We studied 117 tracheostomies. Intubation to tracheostomy shortened significantly (Spearman's correlation coefficient; rho = - 0.44, p ≤ 0.001) during the course of this pandemic. Early tracheostomy was associated with a significant increase in mortality in uni- and multivariate analysis (Hazard ratio 1.83, 95% CI 1.07-3.17, p = 0.029). The timing of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients has a potentially critical impact on mortality. The timing of tracheostomy has changed during this pandemic tending to be performed earlier. Future prospective research is necessary to substantiate these results.

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.

Associated Factors of High Sedative Requirements within Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS.

The coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge global healthcare. Severely affected patients are often in need of high doses of analgesics and sedatives. The latter was studied in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in this prospective monocentric analysis. COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients admitted between 1 April and 1 December 2020 were enrolled in the study. A statistical analysis of impeded sedation using mixed-effect linear regression models was performed. Overall, 114 patients were enrolled, requiring unusual high levels of sedatives. During 67.9% of the observation period, a combination of sedatives was required in addition to continuous analgesia. During ARDS therapy, 85.1% (n = 97) underwent prone positioning. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) was required in 20.2% (n = 23) of all patients. vv-ECMO patients showed significantly higher sedation needs (p < 0.001). Patients with hepatic (p = 0.01) or renal (p = 0.01) dysfunction showed significantly lower sedation requirements. Except for patient age (p = 0.01), we could not find any significant influence of pre-existing conditions. Age, vv-ECMO therapy and additional organ failure could be demonstrated as factors influencing sedation needs. Young patients and those receiving vv-ECMO usually require increased sedation for intensive care therapy. However, further studies are needed to elucidate the causes and mechanisms of impeded sedation.

The MiR-320 Family Is Strongly Downregulated in Patients with COVID-19 Induced Severe Respiratory Failure.

A high incidence of thromboembolic events associated with high mortality has been reported in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections with respiratory failure. The present study characterized post-transcriptional gene regulation by global microRNA (miRNA) expression in relation to activated coagulation and inflammation in 21 critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients. The cohort consisted of patients with moderate respiratory failure (n = 11) and severe respiratory failure (n = 10) at an acute stage (day 0-3) and in the later course of the disease (>7 days). All patients needed supplemental oxygen and severe patients were defined by the requirement of positive pressure ventilation (intubation). Levels of D-dimers, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and interleukin (IL)-6 were significantly higher in patients with severe compared with moderate respiratory failure. Concurrently, next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis demonstrated increased dysregulation of miRNA expression with progression of disease severity connected to extreme downregulation of miR-320a, miR-320b and miR-320c. Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis revealed involvement in the Hippo signaling pathway, the transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß signaling pathway and in the regulation of adherens junctions. The expression of all miR-320 family members was significantly correlated with CRP, IL-6, and D-dimer levels. In conclusion, our analysis underlines the importance of thromboembolic processes in patients with respiratory failure and emphasizes miRNA-320s as potential biomarkers for severe progressive SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Greater Fibrinolysis Resistance but No Greater Platelet Aggregation in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The hemostatic balance in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) seems to be shifted toward a hypercoagulable state. The aim of the current study was to assess the associated coagulation alterations by point-of-care-diagnostics, focusing on details of clot formation and lysis in these severely affected patients. METHODS: The authors' prospective monocentric observational study included critically ill patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Demographics and biochemical data were recorded. To assess the comprehensive hemostatic profile of this patient population, aggregometric (Multiplate) and viscoelastometric (CloPro) measures were performed in the intensive care unit of a university hospital at a single occasion. Coagulation analysis and assessment of coagulation factors were performed. Data were compared to healthy controls. RESULTS: In total, 27 patients (21 male; mean age, 60 yr) were included. Impedance aggregometry displayed no greater platelet aggregability in COVID-19 in comparison with healthy controls (area under the curve [AUC] in adenosine diphosphate test, 68 ± 37 U vs. 91 ± 29 U [-27 (Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, -48 to -1); P = 0.043]; AUC in arachidonic acid test, 102 ± 54 U vs. 115 ± 26 U [-21 (Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, -51 to 21); P = 0.374]; AUC in thrombin receptor activating peptide 6 test, 114 ± 61 U vs. 144 ± 31 U [-31 (Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, -69 to -7); P = 0.113]). Comparing the thromboelastometric results of COVID-19 patients to healthy controls, the authors observed significant differences in maximum clot firmness in fibrin contribution to maximum clot firmness assay (37 ± 11 mm vs. 15 ± 4 mm [21 (Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, 17 to 26); P < 0.001]) and lysis time in extrinsic activation and activation of fibrinolysis by tissue plasminogen activator assay (530 ± 327 s vs. 211 ± 80 s [238 (Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, 160 to 326); P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Thromboelastometry in COVID-19 patients revealed greater fibrinolysis resistance. The authors did not find a greater platelet aggregability based on impedance aggregometric tests. These findings may contribute to our understanding of the hypercoagulable state of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Treating patients across European Union borders: An international survey in light of the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In light of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, how resources are managed and the critically ill are allocated must be reviewed. Although ethical recommendations have been published, strategies for dealing with overcapacity of critical care resources have so far not been addressed. OBJECTIVES: Assess expert opinion for allocation preferences regarding the growing imbalance between supply and demand for medical resources. DESIGN: A 10-item questionnaire was developed and sent to the most prominent members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). SETTING: Survey via a web-based platform. PATIENTS: Respondents were members of the National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee and Council Members of the ESAIC; 74 of 80 (92.5%), responded to the survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Responses were analysed thematically. The majority of respondents (83.8%), indicated that resources for COVID-19 were available at the time of the survey. Of the representatives of the ESAIC governing bodies, 58.9% favoured an allocation of excess critical care capacity: 69% wished to make them available to supraregional patients, whereas 30.9% preferred to keep the resources available for the local population. Regarding the type of distribution of resources, 35.3% preferred to make critical care available, 32.4% favoured the allocation of medical equipment and 32.4% wished to support both options. The majority (59.5%) supported the implementation of a central European institution to manage such resource allocation. CONCLUSION: Experts in critical care support the allocation of resources from centres with overcapacity. The results indicate the need for centrally administered allocation mechanisms that are not based on ethically disputable triage systems. It seems, therefore, that there is wide acceptance and solidarity among the European anaesthesiological community that local medical and human pressure should be relieved during a pandemic by implementing national and international re-allocation strategies among healthcare providers and healthcare systems.