Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Cardiovasc Toxicol ; 22(1): 63-66, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1465906

ABSTRACT

Intoxication from calcium channel blockers exhibits almost 50% mortality rates. Amlodipine is a long-acting dihydropyridine and inappropriate dosage poses a great threat for profound vasodilation, hypotension, and refractory vasopressor-resistant shock. A 72-year-old woman with unremarkable medical history presented to the emergency department due to amlodipine overdose after a suicide attempt attributed to COVID-19 pandemic severe anxiety disorder. Vital signs at presentation: heart rate 82 beats/ min, arterial pressure 72/55 mmHg, and oxygen saturation 98%. Resuscitation was initiated with intravenous infusion of normal saline 0,9%, noradrenaline, and calcium chloride, while activated charcoal was orally administrated; however, blood pressure remained at 70/45 mmHg. Abruptly, she experienced acute pulmonary edema and was finally intubated. We commenced high-dose insulin infusion with Dextrose 10% infusion to maintain euglycemic hyperinsulinemia. Hemodynamic improvement occurred after 30 min, systolic blood pressure raised to 95 mmHg, and decongestion was achieved with intravenous furosemide. Insulin effect was dose-dependent and patient's hemodynamic status improved after insulin uptitration. Eight days later, the patient was weaned from the mechanical ventilation and she was successfully discharged after 14 days. High-dose intravenous infusion of insulin up to 10 units/kg per hour appears as an inotropic agent possibly through alterations in myocardial metabolism of fatty acids and augmentation of insulin secretion and uptake. This regimen possibly exhibits additional vasotropic properties. We conclude that euglycemic hyperinsulinemia is a potentially advantageous treatment in CCB toxicity.


Subject(s)
Amlodipine/toxicity , COVID-19 , Drug Overdose/drug therapy , Hyperinsulinism/chemically induced , Shock/drug therapy , Suicide, Attempted , Aged , COVID-19/psychology , Calcium Channel Blockers/toxicity , Drug Overdose/blood , Drug Overdose/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Hyperinsulinism/blood , Insulin/administration & dosage , Shock/blood , Shock/diagnosis , Suicide, Attempted/psychology
2.
Adv Ther ; 38(6): 3223-3265, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1279500

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Centhaquine (Lyfaquin®) showed significant efficacy as a resuscitative agent in animal models of haemorrhagic shock. Its safety and tolerability were confirmed in healthy human volunteers. In this study, our primary objective was to determine the safety, and the secondary objective was to assess the efficacy of centhaquine in patients with hypovolemic shock. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, randomized phase II study was conducted in male and female patients aged 18-70 years with hypovolemic shock having systolic BP ≤ 90 mmHg. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the control or centhaquine group. The control group received 100 ml of normal saline infusion over 1 h, while the centhaquine group received 0.01 mg/kg of centhaquine in 100 ml normal saline infusion over 1 h. Every patient received standard of care (SOC) and was followed for 28 days. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included, and 45 completed the trial: 22 in the control group and 23 in the centhaquine group. The demographics of patients in both groups were comparable. No adverse event related to centhaquine was recorded in the 28-day observation period. The baseline, Injury Scoring System score, haemoglobin, and haematocrit were similar in both groups. However, 91% of the patients in the centhaquine group needed major surgery, whereas only 68% in the control group (p = 0.0526). Twenty-eight-day all-cause mortality was 0/23 in the centhaquine group and 2/22 in the control group. The percent time in ICU and ventilator support was less in the centhaquine group than in the control group. The total amount of vasopressors needed in the first 48 h of resuscitation was lower in the centhaquine group than in the control group (3.12 ± 2.18 vs. 9.39 ± 4.28 mg). An increase in systolic and diastolic BP from baseline through 48 h was more marked in the centhaquine group than in the control group. Compared with the control group, blood lactate level was lower by 1.75 ± 1.07 mmol/l in the centhaquine group on day 3 of resuscitation. Improvements in base deficit, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) score and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were greater in the centhaquine group than in the control group. CONCLUSION: When added to SOC, centhaquine is a well-tolerated and effective resuscitative agent. It improves the clinical outcome of patients with hypovolemic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT04056065.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Shock , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Piperazines , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/drug therapy
3.
JAMA ; 325(3): 254-264, 2021 01 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1239953

ABSTRACT

Importance: It is unknown whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether discontinuation compared with continuation of ACEIs or ARBs changed the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization (enrolled: April 9-June 26, 2020; final follow-up: July 26, 2020). Interventions: Discontinuation (n = 334) or continuation (n = 325) of ACEIs or ARBs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Secondary outcomes included death, cardiovascular death, and COVID-19 progression. Results: Among 659 patients, the median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.1-65.0 years), 14.7% were aged 70 years or older, 40.4% were women, and 100% completed the trial. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 6 days (IQR, 4-9 days) and 27.2% of patients had an oxygen saturation of less than 94% of room air at baseline. In terms of clinical severity, 57.1% of patients were considered mild at hospital admission and 42.9% were considered moderate. There was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital in patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days [SD, 8 days]) vs patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days [SD, 7.1 days]) and the mean ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01). There also was no statistically significant difference in death (2.7% for the discontinuation group vs 2.8% for the continuation group; odds ratio [OR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.52]), cardiovascular death (0.6% vs 0.3%, respectively; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.19-42.12]), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs 32.3%; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.80]). The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs 7.1%, respectively), acute myocardial infarction (7.5% vs 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs 2.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospital admission, there was no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue vs continue these medications. These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364893.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2 , Withholding Treatment , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Disease Progression , Female , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Sample Size , Shock/drug therapy , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
4.
Crit Pathw Cardiol ; 20(2): 100-102, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1234149

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To understand the hemodynamic effect of angiotensin II as a vasopressor in patients with shock secondary to COVID-19 infection. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients at a single center with COVID-19 infection and shock who were treated with angiotensin II. The hemodynamic response to angiotensin II was estimated by recording the mean arterial pressure, norepinephrine equivalent dose (NED) and urine output. RESULTS: Ten patients with COVID-19 related shock were treated with angiotensin II. Over the initial 6 hours, the average the NED decreased by 30.4% (from 64.6 to 44 µg/min) without a significant change in the mean arterial pressure (0.7% decrease). Six patients experienced at least a 25% reduction in NED by 6 hours, and 2 experienced at least a 50% reduction. CONCLUSIONS: On average, the hemodynamic response to angiotensin II in COVID-19 related shock was favorable. Two patients had a marked rapid improvement. Given the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, further evaluation of angiotensin II for the treatment of COVID-19 related shock is warranted.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin II/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Shock/drug therapy , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use , Aged , Arterial Pressure , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Shock/physiopathology , Shock/virology
5.
JAMA ; 325(3): 254-264, 2021 01 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1086209

ABSTRACT

Importance: It is unknown whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether discontinuation compared with continuation of ACEIs or ARBs changed the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization (enrolled: April 9-June 26, 2020; final follow-up: July 26, 2020). Interventions: Discontinuation (n = 334) or continuation (n = 325) of ACEIs or ARBs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Secondary outcomes included death, cardiovascular death, and COVID-19 progression. Results: Among 659 patients, the median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.1-65.0 years), 14.7% were aged 70 years or older, 40.4% were women, and 100% completed the trial. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 6 days (IQR, 4-9 days) and 27.2% of patients had an oxygen saturation of less than 94% of room air at baseline. In terms of clinical severity, 57.1% of patients were considered mild at hospital admission and 42.9% were considered moderate. There was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital in patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days [SD, 8 days]) vs patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days [SD, 7.1 days]) and the mean ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01). There also was no statistically significant difference in death (2.7% for the discontinuation group vs 2.8% for the continuation group; odds ratio [OR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.52]), cardiovascular death (0.6% vs 0.3%, respectively; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.19-42.12]), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs 32.3%; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.80]). The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs 7.1%, respectively), acute myocardial infarction (7.5% vs 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs 2.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospital admission, there was no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue vs continue these medications. These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364893.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2 , Withholding Treatment , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Disease Progression , Female , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Sample Size , Shock/drug therapy , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
6.
JAMA ; 324(13): 1317-1329, 2020 10 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-739603

ABSTRACT

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydrocortisone/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Female , Humans , Hydrocortisone/adverse effects , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/drug therapy , Shock/etiology , Treatment Outcome
7.
A A Pract ; 14(6): e01221, 2020 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-325939

ABSTRACT

The rapid spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has sparked a search for effective therapies. The discovery that the virus binds the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor has led to investigation of the renin-angiotensin system for possible therapeutic targets. We present a case of an elderly woman with multiple comorbidities who developed severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a cardiomyopathy, and vasodilatory shock secondary to COVID-19 and was treated with exogenous angiotensin II. She rapidly demonstrated significant hemodynamic improvement without noted adverse effects. Thus, we propose further investigation into possible benefits of angiotensin II in shock secondary to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin II/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Shock/drug therapy , Shock/etiology , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL