Long-term ketamine infusion-induced cholestatic liver injury in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: A higher-than-usual resistance to standard sedation regimens in COVID-19 patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has led to the frequent use of the second-line anaesthetic agent ketamine. Simultaneously, an increased incidence of cholangiopathies in mechanically ventilated patients receiving prolonged infusion of high-dose ketamine has been noted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate a potential dose-response relationship between ketamine and bilirubin levels. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients suffering from COVID-19-associated ARDS between March 2020 and August 2021. A time-varying, multivariable adjusted, cumulative weighted exposure mixed-effects model was employed to analyse the exposure-effect relationship between ketamine infusion and total bilirubin levels. RESULTS: Two-hundred forty-three critically ill patients were included into the analysis. Ketamine was infused to 170 (70%) patients at a rate of 1.4 [0.9-2.0] mg/kg/h for 9 [4-18] days. The mixed-effects model revealed a positively correlated infusion duration-effect as well as dose-effect relationship between ketamine infusion and rising bilirubin levels (p < 0.0001). In comparison, long-term infusion of propofol and sufentanil, even at high doses, was not associated with increasing bilirubin levels (p = 0.421, p = 0.258). Patients having received ketamine infusion had a multivariable adjusted competing risk hazard of developing a cholestatic liver injury during their ICU stay of 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-7.8] (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A causally plausible, dose-effect relationship between long-term infusion of ketamine and rising total bilirubin levels, as well as an augmented, ketamine-associated, hazard of cholestatic liver injury in critically ill COVID-19 patients could be shown. High-dose ketamine should be refrained from whenever possible for the long-term analgosedation of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.

Long-Term Persisting SARS-CoV-2 RNA and Pathological Findings: Lessons Learnt From a Series of 35 COVID-19 Autopsies.

BACKGROUND: Long-term sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the interaction between persisting viral-RNA and specific tissue involvement, pose a challenging issue. In this study, we addressed the chronological correlation (after first clinical diagnosis and postmortem) between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA and organ involvement. METHODS: The presence of postmortem SARS-CoV-2 RNA from 35 complete COVID-19 autopsies was correlated with the time interval between the first diagnosis of COVID-19 and death and with its relationship to morphologic findings. RESULTS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA can be evident up to 40 days after the first diagnosis and can persist to 94 hours after death. Postmortem SARS-CoV-2 RNA was mostly positive in lungs (70%) and trachea (69%), but all investigated organs were positive with variable frequency. Late-stage tissue damage was evident up to 65 days after initial diagnosis in several organs. Positivity for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in pulmonary swabs correlated with diffuse alveolar damage (p = 0.0009). No correlation between positive swabs and other morphologic findings was present. Cerebral (p = 0.0003) and systemic hemorrhages (p = 0.009), cardiac thrombi (p = 0.04), and ischemic events (p = 0.03) were more frequent in the first wave, whereas bacterial pneumonia (p = 0.03) was more prevalent in the second wave. No differences in biometric data, clinical comorbidities, and other autopsy findings were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide evidence not only of long-term postmortem persisting SARS-CoV-2 RNA but also of tissue damage several weeks after the first diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additional conditions, such as concomitant bacterial pulmonary superinfection, lung aspergillosis, thromboembolic phenomena, and hemorrhages can further worsen tissue damage.

Intracranial Hemorrhages on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Differences Between COVID-19 and Other Viral Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a potentially lifesaving procedure in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Previous studies have shown a high prevalence of clinically silent cerebral microbleeds in patients with COVID-19. Based on this fact, together with the hemotrauma and the requirement of therapeutic anticoagulation on ECMO support, we hypothesized an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhages (ICHs). We analyzed ICH occurrence rate, circumstances and clinical outcome in patients that received ECMO support due to COVID-19-induced ARDS in comparison to viral non-COVID-19-induced ARDS intracerebral hemorrhage. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective analysis between January 2010 and May 2021. SETTING: Three tertiary care ECMO centers in Germany and Switzerland. PATIENTS: Two-hundred ten ARDS patients on ECMO support (COVID-19, n = 142 vs viral non-COVID, n = 68). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Evaluation of ICH occurrence rate, parameters of coagulation and anticoagulation strategies, inflammation, and ICU survival. COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS patients showed comparable disease severity regarding Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, while the oxygenation index before ECMO cannulation was higher in the COVID group (82 vs 65 mm Hg). Overall, ICH of any severity occurred in 29 of 142 COVID-19 patients (20%) versus four of 68 patients in the control ECMO group (6%). Fifteen of those 29 ICH events in the COVID-19 group were classified as major (52%) including nine fatal cases (9/29, 31%). In the control group, there was only one major ICH event (1/4, 25%). The adjusted subhazard ratio for the occurrence of an ICH in the COVID-19 group was 5.82 (97.5% CI, 1.9-17.8; p = 0.002). The overall ICU mortality in the presence of ICH of any severity was 88%. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective multicenter analysis showed a six-fold increased adjusted risk for ICH and a 3.5-fold increased incidence of ICH in COVID-19 patients on ECMO. Prospective studies are needed to confirm this observation and to determine whether the bleeding risk can be reduced by adjusting anticoagulation strategies.

Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes. METHOD: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min. RESULTS: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.