ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is characterized by a dysregulated inflammatory response, which may result in severe hemodynamic instability and septic shock. The Seraph-100® Microbind® Affinity Blood Filter is a commercially available extracorporeal pathogen absorbent device with the ability to bind pathogens and cytokines present within the blood. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the Seraph-100® for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to evaluate the use of the Seraph-100® blood filter at a Single Center tertiary-care facility at Brooke Army Medical Center from 2020 to 2021. Nine patients (11 treatments) were completed with the Seraph-100® blood filter in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and septic shock. The Seraph-100® blood filter was used in combination with continuous renal replacement therapy and slow low-efficiency dialysis or directly in parallel with the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit. RESULTS: Within this cohort, there was a statistically significant improvement in the following clinical parameters comparing values to before and after treatment with the Seraph-100® blood filter: Mean arterial pressure (mmHg) (64.2 ± 2.36 vs. 76.2 ± 2.68; P < .001), heart rate (beats per minute) (128 ± 6.6 vs. 100.3 ± 6.07; P < .001), administered fraction of oxygen (%) (74.4 ± 10.58 vs. 60.3 ± 10.35; P < .001), serum lactate (mmol/L) (6.14 ± 1.25 vs. 2.8 ± 1.14; P = .0095), and pH (7.29 ± 0.03 vs. 7.39 ± 0.04; P = .0203). There were statistically significant improvements in vasopressor requirements: norepinephrine (mcg/min) (36.3 ± 4.74 vs. 8.3 ± 3.92; P < .001), vasopressin (units/min) (0.04 ± 0.004 vs. 0.02 ± 0.003; P < .001), dobutamine (mcg/kg/min) (2.3 ± 1.00 vs. 0.2 ± 0.75; P = .006) and angiotensin II (ng/kg/min) (34.5 ± 6.4 vs. 3.3 ± 5.26; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Seraph-100® blood filter was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in hemodynamic parameters and decreased vasopressor requirements in patients with septic shock and SARS-CoV-2 infection.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Virtual care (VC) and remote patient monitoring programs were deployed widely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deployments were heterogeneous and evolved as the pandemic progressed, complicating subsequent attempts to quantify their impact. The unique arrangement of the US Military Health System (MHS) enabled direct comparison between facilities that did and did not implement a standardized VC program. The VC program enrolled patients symptomatic for COVID-19 or at risk for severe disease. Patients' vital signs were continuously monitored at home with a wearable device (Current Health). A central team monitored vital signs and conducted daily or twice-daily reviews (the nurse-to-patient ratio was 1:30). OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to describe the operational model of a VC program for COVID-19, evaluate its financial impact, and detail its clinical outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective difference-in-differences (DiD) evaluation that compared 8 military treatment facilities (MTFs) with and 39 MTFs without a VC program. Tricare Prime beneficiaries diagnosed with COVID-19 (Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group 177 or International Classification of Diseases-10 codes U07.1/07.2) who were eligible for care within the MHS and aged 21 years and or older between December 2020 and December 2021 were included. Primary outcomes were length of stay and associated cost savings; secondary outcomes were escalation to physical care from home, 30-day readmissions after VC discharge, adherence to the wearable, and alarms per patient-day. RESULTS: A total of 1838 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to an MTF with a VC program of 3988 admitted to the MHS. Of these patients, 237 (13%) were enrolled in the VC program. The DiD analysis indicated that centers with the program had a 12% lower length of stay averaged across all COVID-19 patients, saving US $2047 per patient. The total cost of equipping, establishing, and staffing the VC program was estimated at US $3816 per day. Total net savings were estimated at US $2.3 million in the first year of the program across the MHS. The wearables were activated by 231 patients (97.5%) and were monitored through the Current Health platform for a total of 3474 (median 7.9, range 3.2-16.5) days. Wearable adherence was 85% (IQR 63%-94%). Patients triggered a median of 1.6 (IQR 0.7-5.2) vital sign alarms per patient per day; 203 (85.7%) were monitored at home and then directly discharged from VC; 27 (11.4%) were escalated to a physical hospital bed as part of their initial admission. There were no increases in 30-day readmissions or emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Monitored patients were adherent to the wearable device and triggered a manageable number of alarms/day for the monitoring-team-to-patient ratio. Despite only enrolling 13% of COVID-19 patients at centers where it was available, the program offered substantial savings averaged across all patients in those centers without adversely affecting clinical outcomes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Aged , United States , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Medicare , Retrospective Studies , HospitalizationABSTRACT
A significant proportion of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at our institution demonstrated heparin resistance, which in combination with a heparin shortage resulted in the transition to argatroban with or without aspirin as an alternative anticoagulation strategy. The optimal anticoagulation strategy for coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is unknown, and therefore, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of argatroban with or without aspirin as an alternative anticoagulation strategy in this patient population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Single-center tertiary-care facility in Fort Sam Houston, TX, from 2020 to 2021. PATIENTS: Twenty-four patients who were cannulated for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation due to respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Argatroban, with or without aspirin, was substituted for heparin in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty percent of our coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation demonstrated heparin resistance, and patients who were initially started on heparin were significantly more likely to require a change to argatroban than vice versa due to difficulty achieving or maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation goals (93.4% vs 11.1%; p < 0.0001). The time to reach the therapeutic anticoagulation goal was significantly longer for patients who were initially started on heparin in comparison with argatroban (24 vs 6 hr; p = 0.0173). Bleeding and thrombotic complications were not significantly different between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Argatroban, with or without aspirin, is an effective anticoagulation strategy for patients who require venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support secondary to coronavirus disease 2019. In comparison with heparin, this anticoagulation strategy was not associated with a significant difference in bleeding or thrombotic complications, and was associated with a significantly decreased time to therapeutic anticoagulation goal, likely as a result of high rates of heparin resistance observed in this patient population.