Electroencephalogram-Based Evaluation of Impaired Sedation in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS.

The sedation management of patients with severe COVID-19 is challenging. Processed electroencephalography (pEEG) has already been used for sedation management before COVID-19 in critical care, but its applicability in COVID-19 has not yet been investigated. We performed this prospective observational study to evaluate whether the patient sedation index (PSI) obtained via pEEG may adequately reflect sedation in ventilated COVID-19 patients. Statistical analysis was performed by linear regression analysis with mixed effects. We included data from 49 consecutive patients. None of the patients received neuromuscular blocking agents by the time of the measurement. The mean value of the PSI was 20 (±23). The suppression rate was determined to be 14% (±24%). A deep sedation equivalent to the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale of -3 to -4 (correlation expected PSI 25-50) in bedside examination was noted in 79.4% of the recordings. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between the sedative dosages of propofol, midazolam, clonidine, and sufentanil (p < 0.01) and the sedation index. Our results showed a distinct discrepancy between the RASS and the determined PSI. However, it remains unclear to what extent any discrepancy is due to the electrophysiological effects of neuroinflammation in terms of pEEG alteration, to the misinterpretation of spinal or vegetative reflexes during bedside evaluation, or to other causes.

Cytokine levels associated with favorable clinical outcome in the CAPSID randomized trial of convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19.

Objectives: To determine the profile of cytokines in patients with severe COVID-19 who were enrolled in a trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Methods: Patients were randomized to receive standard treatment and 3 CCP units or standard treatment alone (CAPSID trial, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910). The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome (survival and no longer severe COVID-19 on day 21). Time to clinical improvement was a key secondary endpoint. The concentrations of 27 cytokines were measured (baseline, day 7). We analyzed the change and the correlation between serum cytokine levels over time in different subgroups and the prediction of outcome in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses and in multivariate models. Results: The majority of cytokines showed significant changes from baseline to day 7. Some were strongly correlated amongst each other (at baseline the cluster IL-1ß, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, G-CSF, MIP-1α, the cluster PDGF-BB, RANTES or the cluster IL-4, IL-17, Eotaxin, bFGF, TNF-α). The correlation matrix substantially changed from baseline to day 7. The heatmaps of the absolute values of the correlation matrix indicated an association of CCP treatment and clinical outcome with the cytokine pattern. Low levels of IP-10, IFN-γ, MCP-1 and IL-1ß on day 0 were predictive of treatment success in a ROC analysis. In multivariate models, low levels of IL-1ß, IFN-γ and MCP-1 on day 0 were significantly associated with both treatment success and shorter time to clinical improvement. Low levels of IP-10, IL-1RA, IL-6, MCP-1 and IFN-γ on day 7 and high levels of IL-9, PDGF and RANTES on day 7 were predictive of treatment success in ROC analyses. Low levels of IP-10, MCP-1 and high levels of RANTES, on day 7 were associated with both treatment success and shorter time to clinical improvement in multivariate models. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates a considerable dynamic of cytokines over time, which is influenced by both treatment and clinical course of COVID-19. Levels of IL-1ß and MCP-1 at baseline and MCP-1, IP-10 and RANTES on day 7 were associated with a favorable outcome across several endpoints. These cytokines should be included in future trials for further evaluation as predictive factors.

Electroencephalogram-Based Evaluation of Impaired Sedation in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS

The sedation management of patients with severe COVID-19 is challenging. Processed electroencephalography (pEEG) has already been used for sedation management before COVID-19 in critical care, but its applicability in COVID-19 has not yet been investigated. We performed this prospective observational study to evaluate whether the patient sedation index (PSI) obtained via pEEG may adequately reflect sedation in ventilated COVID-19 patients. Statistical analysis was performed by linear regression analysis with mixed effects. We included data from 49 consecutive patients. None of the patients received neuromuscular blocking agents by the time of the measurement. The mean value of the PSI was 20 (±23). The suppression rate was determined to be 14% (±24%). A deep sedation equivalent to the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale of −3 to −4 (correlation expected PSI 25–50) in bedside examination was noted in 79.4% of the recordings. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between the sedative dosages of propofol, midazolam, clonidine, and sufentanil (p < 0.01) and the sedation index. Our results showed a distinct discrepancy between the RASS and the determined PSI. However, it remains unclear to what extent any discrepancy is due to the electrophysiological effects of neuroinflammation in terms of pEEG alteration, to the misinterpretation of spinal or vegetative reflexes during bedside evaluation, or to other causes.

Results of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been considered a treatment option for COVID-19. This trial assessed the efficacy of a neutralizing antibody containing high-dose CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support or intensive care treatment.METHODSPatients (n = 105) were randomized 1:1 to either receive standard treatment and 3 units of CCP or standard treatment alone. Control group patients with progress on day 14 could cross over to the CCP group. The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome of survival and no longer fulfilling criteria for severe COVID-19 on day 21.ResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP group and 32.7% in the control group (P = 0.32). The median time to clinical improvement was 26 days in the CCP group and 66 days in the control group (P = 0.27). The median time to discharge from the hospital was 31 days in the CCP group and 51 days in the control group (P = 0.24). In the subgroup that received a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies, the primary outcome occurred in 56.0% of the patients (vs. 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 vs. 66 days, P < 0.05) and to hospital discharge (21 vs. 51 days, P = 0.03) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% vs. 68.1%, P = 0.02) in comparison with the control group.ConclusionCCP added to standard treatment was not associated with a significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit of CCP among patients who received a larger amount of neutralizing antibodies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health): ZMVI1-2520COR802.