COVID-19-induced coagulopathy: Experience, achievements, prospects.

The presence of coagulopathy as part of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome is a characteristic feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hematological changes (increased D-dimer [DD], prolonged activated partial thromboplastin clotting time [APTT] and prothrombin time [PT], high fibrinogen levels) have been observed in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, which characterize the risk of thrombotic events. Against the background of COVID-19 there is endothelial dysfunction, hypoxia and pulmonary congestion, mediated by thrombosis and microvascular occlusion. Up to 71.4% of patients who died from COVID-19 had disseminated intravascular coagulation syndrome, compared with only 0.6% of survivors. The main manifestation of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy is a significant increase in DD without a decrease in platelet count or prolongation of APTT and PT, indicating increased thrombin formation and the development of local fibrinolysis. An increase in DD levels of more than 3-4 times was associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Therefore, COVID-19 requires assessment of the severity of the disease for further tactics of thromboprophylaxis. The need for continued thromboprophylaxis, or therapeutic anticoagulation, in patients after inpatient treatment for two weeks using imaging techniques to assess of thrombosis assessment.

Prediction Value of KREBS Von Den Lungen-6 (KL-6) Biomarker in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is a major issue that necessitates the use of cutting-edge disease prediction models. The aim of the study was to assess the existing evidence regarding association between Krebs von den Lungen-6 levels and COVID-19 severity. A literature search was performed on Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1 January 2020 up to 2 August 2022. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching Google Scholar. In addition, reference lists of relative articles were also reviewed. KL-6 levels among COVID-19 positive vs. negative patients varied and amounted to 443.37 ± 249.33 vs. 205.73 ± 86.8 U/mL (MD = 275.33; 95%CI: 144.57 to 406.09; p < 0.001). The KL-6 level was 402.82 ± 261.16 U/mL in the severe group and was statistically significantly higher than in the non-severe group (297.38 ± 90.46 U/mL; MD = 192.45; 95%CI: 118.19 to 266.72; p < 0.001). The KL-6 level in the mild group was 272.28 ± 95.42 U/mL, compared to 268.04 ± 55.04 U/mL in the moderate COVID-19 group (MD = -12.58; 95%CI: -21.59 to -3.57; p = 0.006). Our meta-analysis indicates a significant association between increased KL-6 levels and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, KL-6 levels are significantly higher in patients with a more severe course of COVID-19, indicating that KL-6 may be a useful predictor to identify patients at risk for severe COVID-19.

Vitamin C Supplementation for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), millions of people have died, and the medical system has faced significant difficulties. Our purpose was to perform a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of vitamin C on in-hospital mortality and the ICU or hospital length of stay for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included studies that evaluated the effect of vitamin C supplementation, compared with standard treatment in COVID-19 patients who are ≥18 y of age. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis. In-hospital mortality with and without vitamin C supplementation was 24.1% vs. 33.9% (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.95; p = 0.03), respectively. Sub-analysis showed that, in randomized clinical trials, in-hospital mortality varied and amounted to 23.9% vs. 35.8% (OR = 0.44; 95%CI: 0.25 to 0.76; p = 0.003), respectively. In the non-randomized trials, in-hospital mortality was 24.2% vs. 33.5% (OR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.38 to 1.39; p = 0.33), respectively. The ICU length of stay was longer in patients treated with vitamin C vs. standard therapy, 11.1 (7.3) vs. 8.3 (4.7) days (MD = 1.91; 95%CI: 0.89 to 2.93; p < 0.001), respectively. Acute kidney injury in patients treated with and without vitamin C varied and amounted to 27.8% vs. 45.0% (OR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.40 to 0.78; p < 0.001), respectively. There were no differences in the frequency of other adverse events among patients' treatment with and without vitamin C (all p > 0.05). The use of vitamin C reduces hospital mortality. The length of stay in the ICU is longer among patients treated with vitamin C. In terms of patient safety, vitamin C has an acceptable profile. Low doses of vitamin C are effective and safe. Despite some evidence of the usefulness of vitamin C in modifying the course of COVID-19, it is too early to modify guidelines and recommendations. Further studies, in particular randomized clinical trials, are necessary.

Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.

Intraosseous versus intravenous access while wearing personal protective equipment: a meta-analysis in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining vascular access is one of the key procedures performed in patients in emergency settings. AIMS: The study was conducted as a meta­analysis and a systematic review and aimed to address the following question: which intravascular access method should be used in patients with COVID­19 when wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE)? METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials that compared intravascular access methods used by operators wearing full level C PPE. We evaluated procedure duration and the success rate of intraosseous and peripheral intravenous accesses. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were included in quantitative synthesis. The use of PPE during intravascular access procedures had an impact on procedure duration in the case of intraosseous access (mean difference [MD], 11.69; 95% CI, 6.47-16.92; P <0.001), as well as reduced the success rate of intraosseous access by 0.8% and intravenous access by 10.1%. Under PPE conditions, intraosseous access, compared with peripheral intravenous access, offered a shorter procedure time (MD, -41.43; 95% CI, -62.36 to -24.47; P <0.001). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta­analysis suggested that the use of PPE significantly extends the duration of intravascular procedures. However, under PPE conditions, operators were able to obtain intraosseous access in a shorter time and with a higher success rate than in the case of intravenous access.

An optimal chest compression technique using personal protective equipment during resuscitation in the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized crossover simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP) in patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19) remains challenging. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare 3 chest compression (CC) methods used by paramedics wearing PPE. METHODS: The single­blinded, multicenter, randomized, crossover simulation study involved 67 paramedics wearing PPE AGP. They performed 2­minute continuous CCs in an adult with suspected or confirmed COVID­19 in 3 scenarios: 1) manual CCs; 2) CCs with the TrueCPR feedback device; 3) CCs with the LUCAS 3 mechanical CC device. RESULTS: The depth of CC was more frequently correct when using LUCAS 3 compared with TrueCPR and manual CC (median [IQR] 51 [50-55] mm vs 47 [43-52] mm vs 43 [38-46] mm; P = 0.005). This was also true for the CC rate (median [IQR]102 [100-102] compressions per minute [CPM] vs 105 [98-1114] CPM vs 116 [112-129] CPM; P = 0.027) and chest recoil (median [IQR]100% [98%-100%] vs 83% [60%-92%] vs 39% [25%-50%]; P = 0.001). A detailed analysis of 2­minute resuscitation with manual CCs showed a decrease in compression depth and full chest recoil after 1 minute of CCs. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that during simulated resuscitation with the use of PPE AGP in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID­19, CC with LUCAS 3 compared with manual CCs as well as the TrueCPR essentially increased the CC quality. In the case of manual CCs by paramedics dressed in PPE AGP, it is advisable to change the person performing resuscitation every minute.

RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERVENTIONS PERFORMED BY EMERGENCY MEDICAL TEAMS IN POLAND BEFORE AND DURING THE SARS COV-2 PANDEMIC.

OBJECTIVE: Introduction: The SARS-CoV-2 virus was recognized in December 2019 in China. From that moment it has quickly spread around the whole world. It causes COVID-19 disease manifested by breathlessness, coughing and high temperature. The COVID-19 pandemic has become a great challenge for humanity. The aim: To analyze interventions of emergency medical teams during the SAR-CoV-2 pandemic, and to compare obtained data with the same periods in 2018-2019. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Material and methods: The study retrospectively analyzed interventions of emergency medical teams in the period from 15.03 to 15.05 in 2018 - 2020. 1,479,530 interventions of emergency medical teams were included in the study. The number of interventions, reasons for calls, and diagnoses made by heads of the emergency medical teams during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were compared to the same period in 2018-2019. RESULTS: Results: Authors observed the decline in the number of interventions performed by emergency medical teams during the pandemic in relation to earlier years by approximately 25%. The big decline concerned interventions that were the reason for calls to public places, such as "traffic accident" and "collapse". In the case of diagnoses made by the head of the emergency medical team, the diagnoses regarding stroke or sudden cardiac arrest remained at the similar level. Others showed a marked decline. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Reduced social activity contributed to a reduced number of interventions by emergency medical teams in public places. The societal fear of the unknown also contributed to the decrease in the number of interventions performed by emergency medical teams. People began to avoid contact with other people.

COVID-19 challenge for modern medicine.

Coronaviruses cause disease in animals and people around the world. Human coronaviruses (HCoV) are mainly known to cause infections of the upper and lower respiratory tract but the symptoms may also involve the nervous and digestive systems. Since the beginning of December 2019, there has been an epidemic of SARS-CoV-2, which was originally referred to as 2019-nCoV. The most common symptoms are fever and cough, fatigue, sputum production, dyspnea, myalgia, arthralgia or sore throat, headache, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea (30%). The best prevention is to avoid exposure. In addition, contact per-sons should be subjected to mandatory quarantine. COVID-19 patients should be treated in specialist centers. A significant number of patients with pneumonia require passive oxygen therapy. Non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy can be applied in mild and moderate non-hypercapnia cases. A lung-saving ventilation strategy must be implemented in acute respiratory distress syndrome and mechanically ventilated patients. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is a highly specialized method, available only in selected centers and not applicable to a significant number of cases. Specific pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 is not currently available. Modern medicine is gearing up to fight the new coronavirus pandemic. The key is a holistic approach to the patient including, primar-ily, the use of personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of further virus transmission, as well as patient management, which consists in both quarantine and, in the absence of specific pharmacological therapy, symptomatic treatment.