Efficacy of Hemoperfusion in Severe and Critical Cases of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Uncontrolled overproduction of inflammatory mediators is predominantly observed in patients with severe COVID-19. The excessive immune response gives rise to multiple organ dysfunction. Implementing extracorporeal therapies may be useful in omitting inflammatory mediators and supporting different organ systems. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hemoperfusion in combination with standard therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHOD: We conducted a single-center, matched control retrospective study on patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients were treated with hemoperfusion in combination with standard therapy (hemoperfusion group) or standard treatment (matched group). Hemoperfusion or hemoperfusion and continuous renal replacement therapies were initiated in the hemoperfusion group. The patients in the matched group were matched one by one with the hemoperfusion group for age, sex, oxygen saturation (SPO2) at the admission, and the frequency of using invasive mechanical ventilation during hospitalization. Two types of hemoperfusion cartridges used in this study were Jafron© (HA330) and CytoSorb® 300. RESULT: A total of 128 COVID-19-confirmed patients were enrolled in this study; 73 patients were allotted to the matched group and 55 patients received hemoperfusion. The median SPO2 at the admission day in the control and hemoperfusion groups was 80% and 75%, respectively (p value = 0.113). The mortality rate was significantly lower in the hemoperfusion group compared to the matched group (67.3% vs. 89%; p value = 0.002). The median length of ICU stay was statistically different in studied groups (median, 12 days for hemoperfusion group vs. 8 days for the matched group; p < 0.001). The median final SPO2 was statistically higher in the hemoperfusion group than in the matched group, and the median PaCO2 was lower. CONCLUSION: Among critically ill COVID-19 patients, based on our study, the use of hemoperfusion may reduce the mortality rate and improve SPO2 and PaCO2.

Comparing the Clinical Characteristics, Laboratory Findings, and Outcomes between Epidemic and Episodic Methanol Poisoning Referrals; a Cross-sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Due to illegal manufacturing and sales of alcoholic beverages, epidemic outbreaks of methanol poisoning may occur. The aim of this study was to determine if there were differences in the severity, course of poisoning, and outcomes between methanol-poisoned patients admitted during an outbreak versus those who were admitted following episodic exposures. METHODS: The present retrospective study was performed in a single referral poisoning center between March 2018 and March 2019 in patients with confirmed methanol poisoning. During this time, in addition to episodic cases of methanol intoxication, there were three methanol poisoning outbreaks. Outbreaks were characterized by an unexpected increase in the number of methanol-poisoned patients in a short period of time, which impacted resources and decision-making. The two groups were compared regarding their severity of poisoning, sessions of hemodialysis, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Outbreak cases had a higher level of methanol than episodic cases. Odds of being dialyzed more than once was 5.4 times higher in the cases presenting during an outbreak (95% CI 2.1-14.0; p=0.001). Mean hospital stay, intubation/mechanical ventilation, and death were similar between the two groups. An evaluation of the alcoholic beverage samples available in the Iranian black market during the outbreak showed a 7-percent methanol concentration with no ethanol content. CONCLUSIONS: Poisoning risk may be higher during methanol outbreaks due to the higher methanol concentrations, requiring more hemodialysis sessions for persistent metabolic acidosis. In addition to alcohol dehydrogenase blockade, careful risk assessment of all methanol poisonings can assist with stratifying the priority for, and duration of, hemodialysis to optimize outcomes.