Clinical course and challenging management of early COVID-19 infection after heart transplantation: case report of two patients.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in solid organ transplant patients, especially in heart transplant recipients, with only a few case reports and case series described so far. Heart transplant recipients may be at particular high risk due to their comorbidities and immunosuppressed state. CASE PRESENTATION: This report describes the clinical course and the challenging management of early COVID-19 infection in two heart transplant recipients who tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the perioperative period of the transplant procedure. The two patients developed a severe form of the disease and ultimately died despite the initiation of an antiviral monotherapy with hydroxychloroquine coupled with the interruption of mycophenolate mofetil. CONCLUSIONS: These two cases illustrate the severity and poor prognosis of COVID-19 in the perioperative period of a heart transplant. Thorough screening of donors and recipients is mandatory, and the issue of asymptomatic carriers needs to be addressed.

Perioperative management of a child with von Willebrand disease undergoing surgical repair of craniosynostosis: looking at unusual targets.

We report the successful management of a craniosynostosis repair in a child with severe Type I von Willebrand disease diagnosed during the preoperative assessment and treated by coagulation factor VIII and ristocetin cofactor. Collaboration among the anesthesiologist, the neurosurgeon, the clinical pathologist, and the pediatric hematologist is important for successful management.

Safety of fully automatic external defibrillation by untrained lay rescuers in the presence of a bystander.

OBJECTIVE: Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are becoming increasingly available in public places to be used by citizens in case of cardiac arrest. Most AEDs are semi-automatic (SAEDs), but some are fully automatic (FAEDs) and there is ongoing debate and concern that they may lead to inadvertent shocks to rescuers or bystanders because the timing of the shock is not controlled by the rescuer. We therefore compared the behaviour of untrained citizens using an FAED or an SAED in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and seventy-six laypeople were randomised to use an FAED or an SAED (Lifepak CR+, Medtronic, Redmond, USA) in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario on a manikin (Ambu, Denmark) where a bystander was touching the victim's upper arm. Each rescuer's performance was recorded on video and analysed afterwards using a modified Cardiff Score. The rescuer or the bystander was considered unsafe if either of them touched the victim during shock delivery. RESULTS: Eleven cases could not be analysed because of technical problems. Fifteen participants violated the protocol making further analysis impossible. Of the remaining 150 participants, 68 used the FAED and 82 used the SAED. The rescuers were safe in 97/150 (65%) cases, without a difference between FAED and SAED. The bystander was safe in 25/68 (37%) cases in the FAED group versus 19/82 (23%) in the SAED group (p=0.07). Combined safety of both rescuer and bystander was observed in 23/68 (34%) cases in the FAED group versus 15/82 (18%) in the SAED group (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Safety was not compromised when untrained lay rescuers used an FAED compared with an SAED. The observation of overall safer behaviour by FAED users in the presence of bystanders may be related to the additional instructions provided by the FAED, and the reduced interaction of the rescuer with the bystander when using the SAED.