Clinical use of Macklin-like radiological sign (Macklin effect): A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies suggested that Macklin sign is a predictor of barotrauma in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We performed a systematic review to further characterize the clinical role of Macklin. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register and Embase were searched for studies reporting data on Macklin. Studies without data on chest CT, pediatric studies, non-human and cadaver studies, case reports and series including <5 patients were excluded. The primary objective was to assess the number of patients with Macklin sign and barotrauma. Secondary objectives were: occurrence of Macklin in different populations, clinical use of Macklin, prognostic impact of Macklin. RESULTS: Seven studies enrolling 979 patients were included. Macklin was present in 4-22% of COVID-19 patients. It was associated with barotrauma in 124/138 (89.8%) of cases. Macklin sign preceded barotrauma in 65/69 cases (94.2%) 3-8 days in advance. Four studies used Macklin as pathophysiological explanation for barotrauma, two studies as a predictor of barotrauma and one as a decision-making tool. Two studies suggested that Macklin is a strong predictor of barotrauma in ARDS patients and one study used Macklin sign to candidate high-risk ARDS patients to awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A possible correlation between Macklin and worse prognosis was suggested in two studies on COVID-19 and blunt chest trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing evidence suggests that Macklin sign anticipate barotrauma in patients with ARDS and there are initial reports on use of Macklin as a decision-making tool. Further studies investigating the role of Macklin sign in ARDS are justified.

Anticoagulation Strategies in Critically Ill Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection: The Role of Direct Thrombin Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: To compare heparin-based anticoagulation and bivalirudin-based anticoagulation within the context of critically ill patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: An observational study. SETTING: At the intensive care unit of a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Critically ill patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection receiving full anticoagulation with heparin or bivalirudin. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three patients received full anticoagulation with bivalirudin and 60 with heparin. Despite patients in the bivalirudin group having higher mortality risk scores (SAPS II 60 ± 16 v 39 ±7, p < 0.001) and a higher need for extracorporeal support compared to the heparin group, hospital mortality was comparable (57% v 45, p = 0.3). No difference in thromboembolic complications was observed, and bleeding events were more frequent in patients treated with bivalirudin (65% v 40%, p = 0.01). Similar results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing intravenous anticoagulation; in addition to comparable thrombotic complications occurrence and thrombocytopenia rate, however, no difference in the bleeding rate was observed (65% v 35%, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Although heparin is the most used anticoagulant in the intensive care setting, bivalirudin-based anticoagulation was safe and effective in a cohort of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2. Bivalirudin may be given full consideration as an anticoagulation strategy for critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2, especially in those with thrombocytopenia and on extracorporeal support.