Resveratrol therapy improves liver function via estrogen-receptors after hemorrhagic shock in rats.

BACKGROUND: Resveratrol may improve organ dysfunction after experimental hemorrhagic or septic shock, and some of these effects appear to be mediated by estrogen receptors. However, the influence of resveratrol on liver function and hepatic microcirculation after hemorrhagic shock is unknown, and a presumed mediation via estrogen receptors has not been investigated in this context. METHODS: Male Sprague-Dawley rats (200-300g, n = 14/group) underwent hemorrhagic shock for 90 min (MAP 35±5 mmHg) and were resuscitated with shed blood and Ringer's solution. Animals were treated intravenously with vehicle (1% EtOH), resveratrol (0.2 mg/kg), the unselective estrogen receptor antagonist ICI 182,780 (0.05 mg/kg) or resveratrol + ICI 182,780 prior to retransfusion. Sham-operated animals did not undergo hemorrhage but were treated likewise. After 2 hours of reperfusion, liver function was assessed either by plasma disappearance rate of indocyanine green (PDRICG) or evaluation of hepatic perfusion and hepatic integrity by intravital microscopy, serum enzyme as well as cytokine levels. RESULTS: Compared to vehicle controls, administration of resveratrol significantly improved PDRICG, hepatic perfusion index and hepatic integrity after hemorrhagic shock. The co-administration of ICI 182,780 completely abolished the protective effect only with regard to liver function. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that resveratrol may improve liver function and hepatocellular integrity after hemorrhagic shock in rats; estrogen receptors mediate these effects at least partially.

Comparison of isoflurane and propofol sedation in critically ill COVID-19 patients-a retrospective chart review.

PURPOSE: In this retrospective study, we compared inhaled sedation with isoflurane to intravenous propofol in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome). METHODS: Charts of all 20 patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to the ICU of a German University Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic between 22/03/2020 and 21/04/2020 were reviewed. Among screened 333 days, isoflurane was used in 97 days, while in 187 days, propofol was used for 12 h or more. The effect and dose of these two sedatives were compared. Mixed sedation days were excluded. RESULTS: Patients' age (median [interquartile range]) was 64 (60-68) years. They were invasively ventilated for 36 [21-50] days. End-tidal isoflurane concentrations were high (0.96 ± 0.41 Vol %); multiple linear regression yielded the ratio (isoflurane infusion rate)/(minute ventilation) as the single best predictor. Infusion rates were decreased under ECMO (3.5 ± 1.4 versus 7.1 ± 3.2 ml∙h-1; p < 0.001). In five patients, the maximum recommended dose of propofol of 4 mg∙hour-1∙kg-1ABW was exceeded on several days. On isoflurane compared to propofol days, neuro-muscular blocking agents (NMBAs) were used less frequently (11% versus 21%; p < 0.05), as were co-sedatives (7% versus 31%, p < 0.001); daily opioid doses were lower (720 [720-960] versus 1080 [720-1620] mg morphine equivalents, p < 0.001); and RASS scores indicated deeper levels of sedation (- 4.0 [- 4.0 to - 3.0] versus - 3.0 [- 3.6 to - 2.5]; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Isoflurane provided sufficient sedation with less NMBAs, less polypharmacy and lower opioid doses compared to propofol. High doses of both drugs were needed in severely ill COVID-19 patients.

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.