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).

Implementation of video-calls between patients admitted to intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic and their families: a pilot study of psychological effects

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused over 530 million infections to date (June 2022), with a high percentage of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. In this context, relatives have been restricted from visiting their loved ones admitted to hospital. This situation has led to an inevitable separation between patients and their families. Video communication could reduce the negative effects of such phenomenon, but the impact of this strategy on levels of anxiety, depression, and PTSD disorder in caregivers is not well-known. Methods We conducted a prospective study (6 October 2020–18 February 2022) at the Policlinico University Hospital in Catania, including caregivers of both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ICU patients admitted during the second wave of the pandemic. Video-calls were implemented twice a week. Assessment of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was performed at 1-week distance (before the first, T1, and before the third, video-call, T2) using the following validated questionnaires: Impact of Event Scale (Revised IES-R), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Results Twenty caregivers of 17 patients completed the study (T1 + T2). Eleven patients survived (n = 9/11 in the COVID-19 and n = 2/6 in the “non-COVID” group). The average results of the questionnaires completed by caregivers between T1 and T2 showed no significant difference in terms of CES-D (T1 = 19.6 ± 10, T2 = 22 ± 9.6;p = 0.17), HADS depression (T1 = 9.5 ± 1.6, T2 = 9 ± 3.9;p = 0.59), HADS anxiety (T1 = 8.7 ± 2.4, T2 = 8.4 ± 3.8;p = 0.67), and IES-R (T1 = 20.9 ± 10.8, T2 = 23.1 ± 12;p = 0.19). Similar nonsignificant results were observed in the two subgroups of caregivers (COVID-19 and “non-COVID”). However, at T1 and T2, caregivers of “non-COVID” patients had higher scores of CES-D (p = 0.01 and p = 0.04, respectively) and IES-R (p = 0.049 and p = 0.02, respectively), while HADS depression was higher only at T2 (p = 0.02). At T1, caregivers of non-survivors had higher scores of CES-D (27.6 ± 10.6 vs 15.3 ± 6.7, p = 0.005) and IES-R (27.7 ± 10.0 vs 17.2 ± 9.6, p = 0.03). We also found a significant increase in CES-D at T2 in ICU-survivors (p = 0.04). Conclusions Our preliminary results showed that a video-call implementation strategy between caregivers and patients admitted to the ICU is feasible. However, this strategy did not show an improvement in terms of the risk of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among caregivers. Our pilot study remains exploratory and limited to a small sample. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44158-022-00067-2.

Hemoperfusion and blood purification strategies in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe cases requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Together with supportive therapies (ventilation in particular), the suppression of the pro-inflammatory state has been a hypothesized target. Pharmacological therapies with corticosteroids and interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists have reduced mortality. The use of extracorporeal cytokine removal, also known as hemoperfusion (HP), could be a promising non-pharmacological approach to decrease the pro-inflammatory state in COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE databases in order to summarize the evidence regarding HP therapy in COVID-19. We included original studies and case series enrolling at least five patients. RESULTS: We included 11 articles and describe the characteristics of the populations studied from both clinical and biological perspectives. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low. Only two studies had a control group, one of which included 101 patients in total. The remaining studies had a range between 10 and 50 patients included. There was large variability in the HP techniques implemented and in clinical and biological outcomes reported. Most studies described decreasing levels of IL-6 after HP treatment. CONCLUSION: Our review does not support strong conclusions regarding the role of HP in COVID-19. Considering the very low level of clinical evidence detected, starting HP therapies in COVID-19 patients does not seem supported outside of clinical trials. Prospective randomized data are needed.