ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Immunomodulatory therapies have shown beneficial effects in patients with severe COVID-19. Patients with hypercytokinemia might benefit from the removal of inflammatory mediators via hemadsorption. METHODS: Single-center prospective randomized trial at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany). Patients with confirmed COVID-19, refractory shock (norepinephrine ≥0.2 µg/kg/min to maintain a mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg), interleukin-6 (IL-6) ≥500 ng/L, and an indication for renal replacement therapy or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were included. Patients received either hemadsorption therapy (HT) or standard medical therapy (SMT). For HT, a CytoSorb® adsorber was used for up to 5 days and was replaced every 18-24 h. The primary endpoint was sustained hemodynamic improvement (norepinephrine ≤0.05 µg/kg/min ≥24 h). RESULTS: Of 242 screened patients, 24 were randomized and assigned to either HT (N = 12) or SMT (N = 12). Both groups had similar severity as assessed by SAPS II (median 75 points HT group vs. 79 SMT group, p = 0.590) and SOFA (17 vs. 16, p = 0.551). Median IL-6 levels were 2,269 (IQR 948-3,679) and 3,747 (1,301-5,415) ng/L in the HT and SMT groups at baseline, respectively (p = 0.378). Shock resolution (primary endpoint) was reached in 33% (4/12) versus 17% (2/12) in the HT and SMT groups, respectively (p = 0.640). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 58% (7/12) in the HT compared to 67% (8/12) in the SMT group (p = 1.0). During the treatment period of 5 days, 6/12 (50%) of the SMT patients died, in contrast to 1/12 (8%) in the HT group. CONCLUSION: HT was associated with a non-significant trend toward clinical improvement within the intervention period. In selected patients, HT might be an option for stabilization before transfer and further therapeutic decisions. This finding warrants further investigation in larger trials.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Apart from conventional reusable bronchoscopes, single-use bronchoscopes (SUB) were recently introduced. Data suggest that SUB might prevent from the risk of cross contamination (i.e. multiresistant pathogens, SARS CoV-2) and save costs. We aimed to investigate visualization, ventilation, handling characteristics, changes in patients' gas exchange, and costs associated with both types of bronchoscopes during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, noninferiority study, 46 patients undergoing PDT were randomized 1:1 to PDT with SUB (Ambu aScope) or reusable bronchoscopes (CONV, Olympus BF-P60). Visualization of tracheal structures rated on 4-point Likert scales was the primary end-point. Furthermore, quality of ventilation, device handling characteristics, changes in the patients' gas exchange, pH values, and costs were assessed. RESULTS: Noninferiority for visualization (the primary endpoint) was demonstrated for the SUB group. Mean visualization scores (lower values better) were 4.1 (95% confidence intervals: 3.9;4.3) for SUB vs. 4.1 (4.0;4.2) for CONV. Noninferiority of ventilation (estimated by minute volume and SpO2) during the procedure could be shown as well. Mean score was 2.6 (2.0;3.1) for SUB vs. 2.4 (2.1;2.7) for CONV (lower values better). No significant differences regarding handling (SUB: 1.2 (1.0;1.4), CONV: 1.3 (1.1;1.6)), blood gas analyses and respiratory variables were found. Cost analysis in our institution revealed 93 per conventional bronchoscopy versus 232.50 with SUB, not considering an estimate for possible infection due to cross-contamination with the reusable device. CONCLUSION: In our study, visualization and overall performance of the SUB during PDT were noninferior to reusable bronchoscopes. Therefore, PDT with SUB is feasible and should be considered if favored by individual institution's cost analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03952247 . Submitted for registration on 28/04/2019 and first posted on 16/05/2019.