SARS-CoV-2 Altered Hemorheological and Hematological Parameters during One-Month Observation Period in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

Hematological and hemorheological parameters are known to be altered in COVID-19; however, the value of combined monitoring in order to deduce disease severity is only scarcely examined. A total of 44 acute SARS-CoV-2-infected patients (aCOV) and 44 age-matched healthy controls (Con) were included. Blood of aCOV was sampled at admission (T0), and at day 2 (T2), day 5 (T5), day 10 (T10), and day 30 (T30) while blood of Con was only sampled once. Inter- and intra-group differences were calculated for hematological and hemorheological parameters. Except for mean cellular volume and mean cellular hemoglobin, all blood cell parameters were significantly different between aCOV and Con. During the acute disease state (T0-T5), hematological and hemorheological parameters were highly altered in aCOV; in particular, anemic conditions and increased immune cell response/inflammation, oxidative/nitrosative stress, decreased deformability, as well as increased aggregation, were observed. During treatment and convalescence until T30, almost all abnormal values of aCOV improved towards Con values. During the acute state of the COVID-19 disease, the hematological, as well as the hemorheological system, show fast and potentially pathological changes that might contribute to the progression of the disease, but changes appear to be largely reversible after four weeks. Measuring RBC deformability and aggregation, as well as oxidative stress induction, may be helpful in monitoring critically ill COVID-19 patients.

One year with the COVID-19 pandemic - Lessons learnt? Intersectoral collaboration measures established during the crisis could benefit capacity and patient flow management in daily clinical practice.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way hospitals work. Strategies that were detached from the boundaries of departments and responsibilities in the COVID-19 pandemic have proven themselves under extreme conditions and show a beneficial influence on patient flow and resource management as well as on the communication culture. The continuation of closer interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral co-operation in a "new clinical routine" could have a positive impact on personnel concepts, communication strategies, and the management of acute care capacities and patient pathways. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The aim of the paper is to critically discuss the knowledge gained in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic from the various approaches in patient flow and capacity management as well as interdisciplinary co-operation. More recent research has evaluated patient pathway management, personnel planning and communication measures with regard to their effect and practicability for continuation in everyday clinical practice. FINDINGS: Patient flows and acute care capacities can be more efficiently managed by continuing a culture change towards closer interdisciplinary and intersectoral co-operation and technologies that support this with telemedicine functionalities and regional healthcare data interoperability. Together with a bi-directional, more frequent and open communication and feedback culture, it could form a "new clinical routine". ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper discusses a holistic approach on the way away from silo thinking towards cross-departmental collaboration.

Conservative management of COVID-19 associated hypoxaemia.

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

Extracorporeal life support in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A EuroELSO international survey.

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means to support patients with acute respiratory failure. Initially, recommendations to treat severe cases of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ECLS have been restrained. In the meantime, ECLS has been shown to produce similar outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to existing data on ARDS mortality. We performed an international email survey to assess how ECLS providers worldwide have previously used ECLS during the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. A questionnaire with 45 questions (covering, e.g., indication, technical aspects, benefit, and reasons for treatment discontinuation), mostly multiple choice, was distributed by email to ECLS centers. The survey was approved by the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO); 276 ECMO professionals from 98 centers in 30 different countries on four continents reported that they employed ECMO for very severe COVID-19 cases, mostly in veno-venous configuration (87%). The most common reason to establish ECLS was isolated hypoxemic respiratory failure (50%), followed by a combination of hypoxemia and hypercapnia (39%). Only a small fraction of patients required veno-arterial cannulation due to heart failure (3%). Time on ECLS varied between less than 2 and more than 4 weeks. The main reason to discontinue ECLS treatment prior to patient's recovery was lack of clinical improvement (53%), followed by major bleeding, mostly intracranially (13%). Only 4% of respondents reported that triage situations, lack of staff or lack of oxygenators, were responsible for discontinuation of ECLS support. Most ECLS physicians (51%, IQR 30%) agreed that patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS (CARDS) benefitted from ECLS. Overall mortality of COVID-19 patients on ECLS was estimated to be about 55%. ECLS has been utilized successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic to stabilize CARDS patients in hypoxemic or hypercapnic lung failure. Age and multimorbidity limited the use of ECLS. Triage situations were rarely a concern. ECLS providers stated that patients with severe COVID-19 benefitted from ECLS.