Socioeconomic Risk Factors for Pediatric Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Statewide Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Economic hardship is a major threat to children's health, implying that pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (pOHCA) might be promoted by lower incomes and child poverty. To target resources, it is helpful to identify geographical hotspots. Rhode Island is the smallest state by area in the United States of America. It has one million inhabitants and is comparable to many larger cities worldwide. We aimed to investigate the possible associations of pOHCA with economic factors and the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Our goal was to identify high-risk areas and evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an influence on delays in prehospital care. METHODS: We analyzed all pOHCA cases (patients <18 years of age) in Rhode Island between March 1, 2018-February 28, 2022. We performed Poisson regression with pOHCA as dependent and economic risk factors (median household income [MHI] and child poverty rate from the US Census Bureau) as well as the COVID-19 pandemic as independent variables. Hotspots were identified using local indicators of spatial association (LISA) statistics. We used linear regression to assess the association of emergency nedical services-related times with economic risk factors and COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 51 cases met our inclusion criteria. Lower MHIs (incidence-rate ratio [IRR]) 0.99 per $1,000 MHI; P=0.01) and higher child poverty rates (IRR 1.02 per percent; P=0.02) were significantly associated with higher numbers of ambulance calls due to pOHCA. The pandemic did not have a significant influence (IRR 1.1; P=0.7). LISA identified 12 census tracts as hotspots (P<0.01). The pandemic was not associated with delays in prehospital care. CONCLUSION: Lower median household income and higher child poverty rate are associated with higher numbers of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

A multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, non-inferiority, randomised and controlled phase II trial to compare standard and torque teno virus-guided immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients in the first year after transplantation: TTVguideIT.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppression after kidney transplantation is mainly guided via plasma tacrolimus trough level, which cannot sufficiently predict allograft rejection and infection. The plasma load of the non-pathogenic and highly prevalent torque teno virus (TTV) is associated with the immunosuppression of its host. Non-interventional studies suggest the use of TTV load to predict allograft rejection and infection. The primary objective of the current trial is to demonstrate the safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of TTV-guided immunosuppression. METHODS: For this purpose, a randomised, controlled, interventional, two-arm, non-inferiority, patient- and assessor-blinded, investigator-driven phase II trial was designed. A total of 260 stable, low-immunological-risk adult recipients of a kidney graft with tacrolimus-based immunosuppression and TTV infection after month 3 post-transplantation will be recruited in 13 academic centres in six European countries. Subjects will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio (allocation concealment) to receive tacrolimus either guided by TTV load or according to the local centre standard for 9 months. The primary composite endpoint includes the occurrence of infections, biopsy-proven allograft rejection, graft loss, or death. The main secondary endpoints include estimated glomerular filtration rate, graft rejection detected by protocol biopsy at month 12 post-transplantation (including molecular microscopy), development of de novo donor-specific antibodies, health-related quality of life, and drug adherence. In parallel, a comprehensive biobank will be established including plasma, serum, urine and whole blood. The date of the first enrolment was August 2022 and the planned end is April 2025. DISCUSSION: The assessment of individual kidney transplant recipient immune function might enable clinicians to personalise immunosuppression, thereby reducing infection and rejection. Moreover, the trial might act as a proof of principle for TTV-guided immunosuppression and thus pave the way for broader clinical applications, including as guidance for immune modulators or disease-modifying agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU CT-Number: 2022-500024-30-00.

Course of Fecal Calprotectin after mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Two years into the pandemic, vaccination remains the most effective option to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Preliminary studies suggest vaccination efficacy in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), but little is known about its impact on chronic intestinal inflammation. Here we assessed the mucosal inflammatory activity in patients with IBD before and after immunization with the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine by measurement of fecal calprotectin (fCP). METHODS: In 42 patients with IBD, the baseline fCP levels obtained prior to the first vaccine were compared with the highest levels measured during and after two doses of vaccination. Patients' sera were collected after the second dose to evaluate anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies' titers. RESULTS: We observed a significant fCP elevation in 31% of patients after any dose. Vedolizumab was identified as the only agent associated with an fCP increase (OR 12.4, 95% CI [1.6; 120.2], p = 0.0171). Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported in 9.5% of all subjects and in 75% of cases accompanied by an fCP increase. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies associated only weakly with the fCP increase after the first dose (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support possible collinearity in pathways of SARS-CoV-2 antigen expression and the pathogenesis of IBD.

Add-On Prostaglandin E1 in Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled Pilot Trial.

Rationale: Prostaglandin E1 (alprostadil; PGE1), in addition to low-dose unfractionated heparin, increases the biocompatibility of extracorporeal systems and enhances the efficacy of artificial organs without increasing bleeding risk. Objectives: We investigated the safety and efficacy of PGE1 in adults receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II pilot trial at two medical intensive care units at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Adults with venovenous ECMO were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of 5 ng/kg/min PGE1 or placebo (0.9% saline) in addition to standard anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was the rate of transfused packed red blood cells per ECMO day. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of and time to clinically overt bleeding and thromboembolic events. A post hoc subgroup analysis included only patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Between September 2016 and April 2021, of 133 screened patients, 50 patients were randomized, of whom 48 received the assigned study medication (24 per group). The transfusion rate was similar between groups (0.41 vs. 0.39; P = 0.733). PGE1 was associated with fewer thromboembolic events (7 vs. 16; P = 0.020) and longer thromboembolism-free time (hazard ratio [HR], 0.302; P = 0.01), fewer clinically overt bleeding events (2 vs. 11; P = 0.017), and longer bleeding-free time (HR, 0.213; P = 0.047). In patients with COVID-19 (n = 25), the HRs for clinically overt bleeding and thromboembolism were 0.276 (95% confidence interval, 0.035-2.186) and 0.521 (95% confidence interval, 0.149-1.825), respectively. Conclusions: Add-on treatment with PGE1 was safe but did not meet the primary endpoint of reducing the rate of red blood cell transfusions in patients receiving venovenous ECMO. Larger studies need to evaluate the safety and efficacy of additional PGE1 in ECMO. Clinical trial registered with EudraCT (2015-005014-30) and www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02895373).

Sensitivity and Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Tests Using Oral, Anterior Nasal, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

The objective of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen detection tests versus those of reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal swabs. The underlying prospective, diagnostic case-control-type accuracy study included 87 hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in a positive and a negative sample cohort between 16 March and 14 May 2021 in two hospitals in Vienna. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was confirmed by RT-PCR. Participants self-performed one oral and one anterior nasal swab for the rapid antigen test, immediately followed by two nasopharyngeal swabs for the rapid antigen test and RT-PCR by the investigator. Test results were read after 15 min, and participants completed a questionnaire in the meantime. Test parameters were calculated based on the evaluation of 87 participants. The overall sensitivity of rapid antigen detection tests versus that of RT-PCR with oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal samples was 18.18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.19% to 32.71%), 63.04% (95% CI 47.55% to 76.79%), and 73.33% (95% CI 58.06% to 85.4%), respectively. All sampling methods had a test specificity of 100% regardless of the cycle threshold (CT) value. Rapid antigen detection tests using self-collected anterior nasal swabs proved to be as sensitive as and more tolerable than professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for CT values up to 30 determined by RT-PCR. This finding illustrates the reliability of tests obtained by adequate self-collected anterior nasal specimen. Sensitivity was dependent upon the CT value for each sampling method. While the main advantage of rapid antigen detection tests is the immediate availability of results, PCR should be preferred in crucial settings wherever possible. IMPORTANCE Rapid antigen detection devices for SARS-CoV-2 represent a valuable tool for monitoring the spread of infection. However, the reliability of the tests depends largely on the test performance and the respective sampling method. Nasopharyngeal swabs mark the gold standard for sample collection in suspected respiratory tract infections but are unsuitable for widespread application, as they must be performed by medically trained personnel. With the underlying study, the head-to-head test performance and the usability of self-collected samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using rapid antigen detection devices were evaluated. The results confirm similar sensitivity of self-collected anterior nasal swabs to that of professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for patients with a CT of < 30 determined by RT-PCR.

Standard blood laboratory values as a clinical support tool to distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients.

Standard blood laboratory parameters may have diagnostic potential, if polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) tests are not available on time. We evaluated standard blood laboratory parameters of 655 COVID-19 patients suspected to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, who underwent PCR testing in one of five hospitals in Vienna, Austria. We compared laboratory parameters, clinical characteristics, and outcomes between positive and negative PCR-tested patients and evaluated the ability of those parameters to distinguish between groups. Of the 590 patients (20-100 years, 276 females and 314 males), 208 were PCR-positive. Positive compared to negative PCR-tested patients had significantly lower levels of leukocytes, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocytes, and thrombocytes; while significantly higher levels were detected with erythrocytes, hemoglobin, hematocrit, C-reactive-protein, ferritin, activated-partial-thromboplastin-time, alanine-aminotransferase, aspartate-aminotransferase, lipase, creatine-kinase, and lactate-dehydrogenase. From all blood parameters, eosinophils, ferritin, leukocytes, and erythrocytes showed the highest ability to distinguish between COVID-19 positive and negative patients (area-under-curve, AUC: 72.3-79.4%). The AUC of our model was 0.915 (95% confidence intervals, 0.876-0.955). Leukopenia, eosinopenia, elevated erythrocytes, and hemoglobin were among the strongest markers regarding accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and post-test probabilities. Our findings suggest that especially leukopenia, eosinopenia, and elevated hemoglobin are helpful to distinguish between COVID-19 positive and negative tested patients.

Risk of Clinically Relevant Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Early during the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, reports suggested alarmingly high incidences for thromboembolic events in critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the clinical relevance of these events was not reported in several studies. Additionally, more recent research showed contradictory results and suggested substantially lower rates of venous thromboembolism. Thus, the aim of the present study was to summarize evidence on the incidence of clinically relevant venous thromboembolism (VTE)-defined as VTE excluding isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (PE) and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT)-in adult critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the incidence of clinically relevant PE and/or DVT in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Scientific reports published in the English language between January and October 2020 were included. We conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate incidence estimates of clinically relevant VTE and bleeding events. We also performed exploratory meta-regression and subgroup analyses of different diagnostic approaches and additional factors that possibly influenced the incidence of these outcomes. Results: Fifty-four articles (5,400 patients) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria, of which 41 had a high risk of bias. The majority of included patients were male, > 60 years, and overweight. Twenty-one studies reported the use of prophylactic doses of heparin. Pooled incidences for clinically relevant PE were estimated at 8% (95% CI, 4-11%), for proximal DVT at 14% (95% CI, 9-20%), and-after exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias-for the composite outcome of VTE at 18% (95% CI, 13-24%). Clinically relevant bleeding occurred at a rate of 6% (95% CI, 2-9%). Conclusions: We summarized currently available data on the rate of clinically relevant VTE in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Pooled incidence estimates were lower than those reported by previous review articles. In the absence of evidence-based anticoagulation guidelines for critically ill patients with COVID-19, the results of our study provide clinically important information for an individual risk-benefit assessment in this context. Registration: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO on June 22, 2020 (CRD42020193353; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).

The use of personal protection equipment does not impair the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A prospective triple-cross over randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

AIM: Prior studies suggest that the use of personal protective equipment might impair the quality of critical care. We investigated the influence of personal protective equipment on out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. METHODS: Randomised controlled non-inferiority triple-crossover study. Forty-eight emergency medical service providers, randomized into teams of two, performed 12 min of basic life support (BLS) on a manikin after climbing 3 flights of stairs. Three scenarios were completed in a randomised order: Without personal protective equipment, with personal protective equipment including a filtering face piece (FFP) 2 mask with valve, and with personal protective equipment including an FFP2 mask without valve. The primary outcome was mean depth of chest compressions with a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 3.5 mm. Secondary outcomes included other measurements of CPR quality, providers' subjective exhaustion levels, and providers' vital signs, including end-tidal CO2. RESULTS: Differences regarding the primary outcome were well below the pre-defined non-inferiority margins for both control vs. personal protective equipment without valve (absolute difference 1 mm, 95% CI [-1, 2]) and control vs. personal protective equipment with valve (absolute difference 1 mm, [-0.2, 2]). This was also true for secondary outcomes regarding quality of chest compressions and providers' vital signs including etCO2. Subjective physical strain after BLS was higher in the personal protective equipment groups (Borg 4 (SD 3) without valve, 4 (SD 2) with valve) than in the control group (Borg 3 (SD 2)). CONCLUSION: PPE including masks with and without expiration valve is safe for use without concerns regarding the impairment of CPR quality.