Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 27
Filter
1.
Artificial Organs ; n/a(n/a), 2022.
Article in English | Wiley | ID: covidwho-1807015

ABSTRACT

Background Despite increasing knowledge about the optimal treatment for patients with severe COVID-19, data from different cohorts suggested that survival of patients treated with ECMO seemed to decline over the course of the pandemic. Methods In this non-interventional retrospective single-center registry study we analyzed all consecutive patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and supported with VV ECMO in our center during the first three waves of the pandemic. From March, 2020 through June, 2021 59 patients have been included. Results Overall 90-day survival was 32%. Besides changes in drug treatment for COVID-19 and a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio before ECMO initiation during the third wave, all other patient baseline characteristics were similar during the three waves. Survival rate was highest during the first wave and lowest during the third wave, yet, this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions VV ECMO has shown to be a feasible and safe support option for patients with severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The results from this single-center study confirm findings from other cohorts showing declining survival rates of patients treated with VV ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the specific reasons for this finding remain unclear.

2.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(3): 307-312, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1751527

ABSTRACT

Extracorporeal haemoadsorption is increasingly being used for the removal of endotoxin or inflammatory cytokines in patients with septic shock or other severe inflammatory states. A reduction in excessively high levels of inflammatory mediators-and mitigation of the devastating clinical impact of severe inflammation-might be a sound rationale for extracorporeal haemoadsorption in critical care, but the evidence for beneficial effects is uncertain. Few randomised controlled trials have been undertaken, and they have not provided reliable evidence for routine use in clinical practice. No study has shown a survival benefit, and only a few studies have shown a significant effect on patients' blood cytokine concentrations. Nonetheless, some clinicians have encouraged the use of haemoadsorption devices, largely on the basis of incomplete data or contentious interpretations of the available data. Further research is required, particularly well designed, prospective clinical trials assessing relevant patient-centred outcomes, including mortality, before widespread adoption of this technology can be recommended.


Subject(s)
Shock, Septic , Critical Care , Cytokines , Humans , Inflammation Mediators , Prospective Studies , Shock, Septic/therapy
3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-325509

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Subpleural consolidations have been found in lung ultrasound in patients with COVID-19, possibly deriving from pulmonary embolism (PE). The diagnostic utility of impact of lung ultrasound in critical-ill patients with COVID-19 for PE diagnostics however is unclear. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all SARS-CoV2-associated ARDS patients admitted to our ICU between March 8 th and May 31 th 2020. They were enrolled in this study, when a lung ultrasound and a computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were documented. In addition, wells score was calculated to estimate the probability of PE. The CTPA was used as the gold standard for the detection of PE. Results: Twenty patients met the inclusion criteria. In 12/20 patients (60%) (sub-) segmental PE were detected by CT-angiography. Lung ultrasound found subpleural consolidations in 90% of patients. PE-typical large supleural consolidations with a size ≥1cm were detectable in 65% of patients and were significant more frequent in patients with PE compared to those without (p=0.035). Large consolidations predicted PE with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 71%. The Wells score was significantly higher in patients with PE compared to those without (2.7±0.8 and 1.7±0.5, respectively, p=0.042) and predicted PE with an AUC of 0.81. When combining the two modalities, comparing patients with considered/probable PE using LUS plus a Wells score ≥2 to patients with possible/unlikely PE in LUS plus a Wells score <2, PE could be predicted with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 80%. Conclusion: Large consolidations detected in lung ultrasound were found frequently in COVID-19 ARDS patients with pulmonary embolism. In combination with a Wells score>2, this might indicate a high-risk for PE in COVID-19.

4.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-314853

ABSTRACT

Background: Hypercoagulopathy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary artery embolism necessitate systemic anticoagulation. Case reports of intracerebral hemorrhages in ventilated COVID-19 patients warrant precaution. It is unclear however, if COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with and without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (ECMO) have more intracerebral hemorrhages (ICH) compared to other ARDS patients. Methods: : We conducted a retrospective observational single center study enrolling all patients with ARDS from 01/2018-05/2020. Patients with ARDS positive for SARS-CoV2 PCR were allocated to the COVID-19 group. Propensity score matching was performed for age, ECMO and risk of bleeding according to HAS-BLED score. Results: : A total of 163, mostly severe ARDS patients were identified, 116 (71.2%) without COVID-19 and 47 (28.8%) positive for SARS-CoV-2. The two groups were comparable concerning the main confounders of ICH including age, HAS-BLED score, need for ECMO-therapy as well as anticoagulation levels reported. In 63/163 cases (38.7%), veno-venous ECMO therapy was required and ICU survival was 52.8%. Although HAS-BLED-score on admission was generally low (1.6±1.3), intracerebral hemorrhage was detected in 22 patients (13.5%) with no statistical difference between the groups (11.2 vs. 19.1% with and without SARS-CoV-2, respectively, p=0.21). Propensity score matching confirmed similar intracerebral bleeding rates in both groups (12.8 vs. 19.1% with and without SARS-CoV-2, respectively, p=0.57). Conclusions: : Intracerebral hemorrhage was detectable in every tenth patient with ARDS. We found no statistically significant increased bleeding rate in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 compared to other causes of ARDS.

6.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 8, 2022 01 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1590188

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning (PP) reduces mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The potential benefit of prone positioning maneuvers during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the use of prone positioning during extracorporeal support and ICU mortality in a pooled population of patients from previous European cohort studies. METHODS: We performed a pooled individual patient data analysis of European cohort studies which compared patients treated with prone positioning during ECMO (Prone group) to "conventional" ECMO management (Supine group) in patients with severe ARDS. RESULTS: 889 patients from five studies were included. Unadjusted ICU mortality was 52.8% in the Supine Group and 40.8% in the Prone group. At a Cox multiple regression analysis PP during ECMO was not significantly associated with a reduction of ICU mortality (HR 0.67 95% CI: 0.42-1.06). Propensity score matching identified 227 patients in each group. ICU mortality of the matched samples was 48.0% and 39.6% for patients in the Supine and Prone group, respectively (p = 0.072). CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of ARDS patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal support, the use of prone positioning during ECMO was not significantly associated with reduced ICU mortality. The impact of this procedure will have to be definitively assessed by prospective randomized controlled trials.


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Data Analysis , Humans , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies
7.
J Clin Med ; 10(19)2021 Sep 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438646

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Delirium complicating the course of Intensive care unit (ICU) therapy is a known driver of morbidity and mortality. It has been speculated that infection with the neurotrophic SARS-CoV-2 might promote delirium. METHODS: Retrospective registry analysis including all patients treated at least 48 h on a medical intensive care unit. The primary endpoint was development of delirium as diagnosed by Nursing Delirium screening scale ≥2. Results were confirmed by propensity score matching. RESULTS: 542 patients were included. The primary endpoint was reached in 352/542 (64.9%) patients, without significant differences between COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients (51.4% and 65.9%, respectively, p = 0.07) and correlated with prolonged ICU stay in both groups. In a subgroup of patients with ICU stay >10 days delirium was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients (p ≤ 0.01). After adjustment for confounders, COVID-19 correlated independently with less ICU delirium (p ≤ 0.01). In the propensity score matched cohort, patients with COVID-19 had significantly lower delirium incidence compared to the matched control patients (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: Delirium is frequent in critically ill patients with and without COVID-19 treated at an intensive care unit. Data suggests that COVID-19 itself is not a driver of delirium per se.

9.
Artif Organs ; 45(9): 1050-1060, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1361914

ABSTRACT

Prognosis of patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is poor. This is especially true for immunosuppressed patients. It is controverisal whether these patients should receive veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) while evidence on this topic is sparse. We report retrospective data of a single-center registry of patients with severe ARDS requiring ECMO support between October 2010 and June 2019. Patients were analyzed by their status of immunosuppression. ECMO weaning success and hospital survival were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Moreover, ventilator free days (VFD) were compared. A total of 288 patients were analyzed (age 55 years, 67% male), 88 (31%) presented with immunosuppression. Survival rates were lower in immunosuppressed patients (27% vs. 53%, P < .001 and 27% vs. 48% after PSM, P = .006). VFD (60 days) were lower for patients with immunosuppression (11.9 vs. 22.4, P < .001), and immunosuppression was an independent predictor for mortality in multivariate analysis. Hospital survival was 20%, 14%, 35%, and 46% for patients with oncological malignancies, solid organ transplantation, autoimmune diseases, and HIV, respectively. In this analysis immunosuppression was an independent predictor for mortality. However, there were major differences in the weaning and survival rates between the etiologies of immunosuppression which should be considered in decision making.


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate
10.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(7): 755-762, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337041

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We sought to clarify the benefit of cytokine adsorption in patients with COVID-19 supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). METHODS: We did a single-centre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial to investigate cytokine adsorption in adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ECMO. Patients with COVID-19 selected for ECMO at the Freiburg University Medical Center (Freiburg, Germany) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive cytokine adsorption using the CytoSorb device or not. Randomisation was computer-generated, allocation was concealed by opaque, sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. The CytoSorb device was incorporated into the ECMO circuit before connection to the patient circuit, replaced every 24 h, and removed after 72 h. The primary endpoint was serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentration 72 h after initiation of ECMO analysed by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints included 30-day survival. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04324528) and the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00021300) and is closed. FINDINGS: From March 29, 2020, to Dec 29, 2020, of 34 patients assessed for eligibility, 17 (50%) were treated with cytokine adsorption and 17 (50%) without. Median IL-6 decreased from 357·0 pg/mL to 98·6 pg/mL in patients randomly assigned to cytokine adsorption and from 289·0 pg/mL to 112·0 pg/mL in the control group after 72 h. One patient in each group died before 72 h. Adjusted mean log IL-6 concentrations after 72 h were 0·30 higher in the cytokine adsorption group (95% CI -0·70 to 1·30, p=0·54). Survival after 30 days was three (18%) of 17 with cytokine adsorption and 13 (76%) of 17 without cytokine adsorption (p=0·0016). INTERPRETATION: Early initiation of cytokine adsorption in patients with severe COVID-19 and venovenous ECMO did not reduce serum IL-6 and had a negative effect on survival. Cytokine adsorption should not be used during the first days of ECMO support in COVID-19. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Cytokines , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Adsorption , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
11.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 52(1): 76-84, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1310591

ABSTRACT

Subpleural consolidations have been found in lung ultrasound in patients with COVID-19, possibly deriving from pulmonary embolism (PE). The diagnostic utility of impact of lung ultrasound in critical-ill patients with COVID-19 for PE diagnostics however is unclear. We retrospectively evaluated all SARS-CoV2-associated ARDS patients admitted to our ICU between March 8th and May 31th 2020. They were enrolled in this study, when a lung ultrasound and a computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were documented. In addition, wells score was calculated to estimate the probability of PE. The CTPA was used as the gold standard for the detection of PE. Twenty out of 25 patients met the inclusion criteria. In 12/20 patients (60%) (sub-) segmental PE were detected by CT-angiography. Lung ultrasound found subpleural consolidations in 90% of patients. PE-typical large supleural consolidations with a size ≥ 1 cm were detectable in 65% of patients and were significant more frequent in patients with PE compared to those without (p = 0.035). Large consolidations predicted PE with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 71%. The Wells score was significantly higher in patients with PE compared to those without (2.7 ± 0.8 and 1.7 ± 0.5, respectively, p = 0.042) and predicted PE with an AUC of 0.81. When combining the two modalities, comparing patients with considered/probable PE using LUS plus a Wells score ≥ 2 to patients with possible/unlikely PE in LUS plus a Wells score < 2, PE could be predicted with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 80%. Large consolidations detected in lung ultrasound were found frequently in COVID-19 ARDS patients with pulmonary embolism. In combination with a Wells score > 2, this might indicate a high-risk for PE in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Clinical Decision Rules , Computed Tomography Angiography , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Pulmonary Artery/diagnostic imaging , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnostic imaging , Ultrasonography , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multimodal Imaging , Predictive Value of Tests , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Registries , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
12.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(2)2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1286808

ABSTRACT

This correspondence argues that data presented previously cannot justify a novel approach for treating hypoxic patients with severe #COVID19 https://bit.ly/3dLaPlk.

13.
Artif Organs ; 45(10): 1168-1172, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1285012

ABSTRACT

ECMO support is particularly resource-intensive and should be provided in highly specialized centers. Occasionally, ECMO needs to be initiated in non-ECMO centers by mobile ECMO retrieval teams. Subsequently, patients must be transferred on ECMO to the ECMO center. We report single-center data from out-of-center initiations of ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic. From March 2020 through February 2021, nine patients were connected to ECMO before transfer to our center. Median travel distance (IQR) from the referring hospital to our center was 66 km (20-92), median land travel time (IQR) was 51 minutes (26-92). Personal protective equipment was available for all team members and used throughout the missions. No infections of team members with SARS-CoV-2 occurred. Three patients survived until hospital discharge. Median duration of ECMO (IQR) was 18 days (2-78) in survivors and 19 days (9-42) in non-survivors, respectively. Out-of-center initiation of ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic was feasible and safe for patients and staff.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Mobile Health Units , Transportation of Patients , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/transmission , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/mortality , Female , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
14.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 175, 2021 05 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1243815

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is widespread. While the risks and benefits of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefits of different respiratory support strategies, employed in intensive care units during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. METHODS: Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclassified into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV), and early IMV, according to the respiratory support strategy employed at the day of admission to ICU. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure comparability between groups. RESULTS: Initially, 1421 patients were assessed for possible study inclusion. Of these, 351 patients (85 SOT, 87 HFNC, 87 NIV, and 92 IMV) remained eligible for full analysis after propensity score matching. 55% of patients initially receiving noninvasive respiratory support required IMV. The intubation rate was lower in patients initially ventilated with HFNC and NIV compared to those who received SOT (SOT: 64%, HFNC: 52%, NIV: 49%, p = 0.025). Compared to the other respiratory support strategies, NIV was associated with a higher overall ICU mortality (SOT: 18%, HFNC: 20%, NIV: 37%, IMV: 25%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, a trial of HFNC appeared to be the most balanced initial respiratory support strategy, given the reduced intubation rate and comparable ICU mortality rate. Nonetheless, considering the uncertainty and stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, SOT and early IMV represented safe initial respiratory support strategies. The presented findings, in agreement with classic ARDS literature, suggest that NIV should be avoided whenever possible due to the elevated ICU mortality risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Respiratory Therapy/methods , Respiratory Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness/mortality , Disease Progression , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
16.
Cureus ; 13(2): e13210, 2021 Feb 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1124804

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Germany reported sufficient intensive care unit (ICU) resources throughout the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients without rationing may improve the outcome. We therefore analyzed ICU resources allocated to COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure and their outcomes. METHODS: Retrospectively, we enrolled severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive patients with respiratory failure from 03/08/2020 to 04/08/2020 and followed until 05/28/2020 in the university hospital of Freiburg, Germany. RESULTS: In the defined interval, 34 COVID-19 patients were admitted to the ICU with median age of 67±13 (31-86) years. Six of 34 (17.6%) were female. All patients suffered from moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 91.2% of the patients were intubated and 23.5% required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Proning was performed in 67.6%, renal replacement therapy (RRT) was required in 35.3%. Ninety-six percent required more than 20 nursing hours per day. Mean ICU stay was 21±19 (1-81) days. Sixty-day survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients was 50.0% (17/34). Causes of death were multi-organ failure (52.9%), refractory ARDS (17.6%) and intracerebral hemorrhage (17.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients is protracted and resource-intense. In a context without resources shortage, 50% of COVID-19 with respiratory failure survived up to 60 days.

17.
Membranes (Basel) ; 11(3)2021 Feb 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1121711

ABSTRACT

The role of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (V-V ECMO) in severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still under debate and conclusive data from large cohorts are scarce. Furthermore, criteria for the selection of patients that benefit most from this highly invasive and resource-demanding therapy are yet to be defined. In this study, we assess survival in an international multicenter cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO and evaluate the performance of several clinical scores to predict 30-day survival. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated retrospective non-interventional international multicenter registry study (NCT04405973, first registered 28 May 2020). In 127 patients treated with V-V ECMO at 15 centers in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and the United States, we calculated the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Score, Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP) Score, Predicting Death for Severe ARDS on V­V ECMO (PRESERVE) Score, and 30-day survival. RESULTS: In our study cohort which enrolled 127 patients, overall 30-day survival was 54%. Median SOFA, SAPS II, APACHE II, RESP, and PRESERVE were 9, 36, 17, 1, and 4, respectively. The prognostic accuracy for all these scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic-AUROC) ranged between 0.548 and 0.605. CONCLUSIONS: The use of scores for the prediction of mortality cannot be recommended for treatment decisions in severe COVID-19 ARDS undergoing V-V ECMO; nevertheless, scoring results below or above a specific cut-off value may be considered as an additional tool in the evaluation of prognosis. Survival rates in this cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V­V ECMO were slightly lower than those reported in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients treated with V-V ECMO.

18.
Neurocrit Care ; 34(3): 739-747, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1095736

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulability in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism necessitating systemic anticoagulation. Case reports of intracerebral hemorrhages in ventilated COVID-19 patients warrant precaution. It is unclear, however, if COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with or without veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (VV-ECMO) have more intracerebral hemorrhages (ICH) compared to other ARDS patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational single-center study enrolling all patients with ARDS from 01/2018 to 05/2020. PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with ARDS were allocated to the COVID-19 group. Propensity score matching was performed for age, VV-ECMO, and bleeding risk. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients with moderate or severe ARDS were identified, 47 (28.8%) in the COVID-19 group, and 116 (71.2%) in the non-COVID-19 group. In 63/163 cases (38.7%), VV-ECMO therapy was required. The ICU survival was 52.8%. COVID-19 patients were older, more often male, and exhibited a lower SOFA score, but the groups showed similar rates of VV-ECMO therapy. Treatments with antiplatelet agents (p = 0.043) and therapeutic anticoagulation (p = 0.028) were significantly more frequent in the COVID-19 patients. ICH was detected in 22 patients (13.5%) with no statistical difference between the groups (11.2 vs. 19.1% without and with SARS-CoV-2, respectively, p = 0.21). Propensity score matching confirmed similar rates of ICH in both groups (12.8 vs. 19.1% without and with SARS-CoV-2, respectively, p = 0.57), thus leveling out possible confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Intracerebral hemorrhage was detected in every tenth patient with ARDS. Despite statistically higher rates of antiplatelet therapy and therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients, we found a similar rate of ICH in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 compared to other causes of ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cerebral Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Cerebral Hemorrhage/virology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cerebral Hemorrhage/therapy , Critical Care , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Germany , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , Registries , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Survival Rate , Young Adult
19.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e043345, 2021 01 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1033006

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) is a last resort treatment option in patients with severe COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Mortality in these critically ill patients is high. Elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels in these severe courses are associated with poor outcome. Extracorporeal cytokine adsorption is an approach to lower elevated IL-6 levels. However, there is no randomised controlled data on the efficacy of cytokine adsorption and its effect on patient outcome in severe COVID-19 related ARDS requiring V-V ECMO support. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We here report the protocol of a 1:1 randomised, controlled, parallel group, open-label intervention, superiority multicentre trial to evaluate the effect of extracorporeal cytokine adsorption using the CytoSorb device in severe COVID-19 related ARDS treated with V-V ECMO. We hypothesise that extracorporeal cytokine adsorption in these patients is effectively reducing IL-6 levels by 75% or more after 72 hours as compared with the baseline measurement and also reducing time to successful V-V ECMO explantation. We plan to include a total of 80 patients at nine centres in Germany. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of this study was approved by the ethical committee of the University of Freiburg as the leading institution (EK 285/20). Additional votes will be obtained at all participating centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04385771 and DRKS 00021248.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Interleukin-6/blood , Cytokines/blood , Germany , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL