Use of nafamostat mesilate for anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents an advanced option for supporting refractory respiratory and/or cardiac failure. Systemic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) is routinely used. However, patients with bleeding risk and/or heparin-related side effects may necessitate alternative strategies: among these, nafamostat mesilate (NM) has been reported. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search (PubMed and EMBASE, updated 12/08/2021), including all studies reporting NM anticoagulation for ECMO. We focused on reasons for starting NM, its dose and the anticoagulation monitoring approach, the incidence of bleeding/thrombosis complications, the NM-related side effects, ECMO weaning, and mortality. RESULTS: The search revealed 11 relevant findings, all with retrospective design. Of these, three large studies reported a control group receiving UFH, the other were case series (n = 3) or case reports (n = 5). The main reason reported for NM use was an ongoing or high risk of bleeding. The NM dose varied largely as did the anticoagulation monitoring approach. The average NM dose ranged from 0.46 to 0.67 mg/kg/h, but two groups of authors reported larger doses when monitoring anticoagulation with ACT. Conflicting findings were found on bleeding and thrombosis. The only NM-related side effect was hyperkalemia (n = 2 studies) with an incidence of 15%-18% in patients anticoagulated with NM. Weaning and survival varied across studies. CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation with NM in ECMO has not been prospectively studied. While several centers have experience with this approach in high-risk patients, prospective studies are warranted to establish the optimal space of this approach in ECMO.

Full and simplified assessment of left ventricular diastolic function in covid-19 patients admitted to ICU: Feasibility, incidence, and association with mortality.

PURPOSE: Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) is associated with poor outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Nonetheless, precise reporting of LVDD in COVID-19 patients is currently lacking and assessment could be challenging. METHODS: We performed an echocardiography study in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU with the aim to describe the feasibility of full or simplified LVDD assessment and its incidence. We also evaluated the association of LVDD or of single echocardiographic parameters with hospital mortality. RESULTS: Between 06.10.2020 and 18.02.2021, full diastolic assessment was feasible in 74% (n = 26/35) of patients receiving a full echocardiogram study. LVDD incidence was 46% (n = 12/26), while the simplified assessment produced different results (incidence 81%, n = 21/26). Nine patients with normal function on full assessment had LVDD with simplified criteria (grade I = 2; grade II = 3; grade III = 4). Nine patients were hospital-survivors (39%); the incidence of LVDD (full assessment) was not different between survivors (n = 2/9, 22%) and non-survivors (n = 10/17, 59%; p = .11). The E/e' ratio lateral was lower in survivors (7.4 [3.6] vs. non-survivors 10.5 [6.3], p = .03). We also found that s' wave was higher in survivors (average, p = .01). CONCLUSION: In a small single-center study, assessment of LVDD according to the latest guidelines was feasible in three quarters of COVID-19 patients. Non-survivors showed a trend toward greater LVDD incidence; moreover, they had significantly worse s' values (all) and higher E/e' ratio (lateral).