ABSTRACT
Background: Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods: Open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial performed in an academic center in Santiago, Chile from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted in immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing pre-specified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days or death. Key secondary outcomes included: time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length-of-stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR clearance rate. Results: Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years, 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We found no benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% vs 33.3%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p>0.99) in the early versus deferred CP group. In-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), mechanical ventilation 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% vs 30% (OR 0.64, 95%CI, 0.19-2.1, p=0.55) in early versus deferred CP group, respectively. Viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% vs 8%, p=0.20) and day 7 (38% vs 19%, p=0.37) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 or less hours after plasma transfusion. Conclusion: Immediate addition of CP therapy in early stages of COVID-19 -compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration- did not confer benefits in mortality, length of hospitalization or mechanical ventilation requirement.
ABSTRACT
Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the principal means of evaluating dyspnea in the emergency department. As its use has increased, the number of studies positive for pulmonary embolism (PE) has decreased to less than 20%. Many of the negative PE studies provide an alternative explanation for dyspnea, most commonly pneumonia, pulmonary edema, pleural effusion, or atelectasis. Nonthrombotic emboli may also be suggested. Airway and obstructive lung disease may be detected on CTPA. Pleural and pericardial disease may also explain the dyspnea, but more detailed evaluation of the serosal surfaces may be limited on the arterial phase of a CTPA.
