Hemoperfusion with CytoSorb as Adjuvant Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with SARS-CoV2 Pneumonia.

We report a preliminary experience of adjuvant therapy with Hemoperfusion (HP) in patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) pneumonia. Currently, there are no approved treatments for CoronaVirus Disease 19 (COVID-19); however, therapeutic strategies based on the preclinical evidence include supportive measures, such as oxygen supplementation, antiviral, and anticoagulant agents. Despite these treatments, 10% of patients worsen and develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Since the pathogenic mechanism of ARDS is an uncontrolled inflammatory state, we speculate that removing inflammation effectors from blood may contrast tissue injury and improve clinical outcome. In a scenario of dramatic medical emergency, we conducted an observational study on 9 consecutive patients hospitalized in COVID Intensive Care Unit, where 5 of 9 consecutive patients were treated with HP, due to the emergency overload made it impossible to deliver blood purification in the other 4 patients. COVID-19 was diagnosed through the identification of virus sequences by reverse transcription-PCR on respiratory specimens. All patients had severe pneumonia requiring continuous positive airway pressure. HP was started in all patients 6-7 days after hospital admission. The treated patients (T) received 2 consecutive sessions of HP using CytoSorb cartridge. Our results show a better clinical course of T compared to control patients (C), in fact all T except 1 survived, and only 2 of them were intubated, while all C required intubation and died. Lymphocytopenia worsened in C but not in T. C-reactive protein decreased in both patients, but to a greater extent in T. IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α decreased after HP, IL-10 did not change. Respiratory function remained stable and did not worsen in T compared to C. The limited sample size and observational study design preclude a sound statement about the potential effectiveness of HP in COVID-19 patients, but our experience suggests a potential therapeutic role of adjuvant CytoSorb HP in the early course of CO-VID-19 pneumonia. A randomized clinical trial is ongoing.

Running out of bullets: The challenging management of acute hepatitis and SARS-COV-2 from the SMatteo COvid19 Registry (SMACORE).

Liver impairment is frequent in patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and direct viral tropism for the liver has been proven. Since several of the currently administered drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are possibly hepatotoxic, the management of patients with COVID-19 and liver failure is still an almost unexplored field. Taking this challenging case of acute HBV with persistent hyperbilirubinemia and SARS-COV-2 infection with respiratory distress as a starting point, we here loop through this condition. Where the available therapeutic options are scarce, we here propose hemoperfusion (HP) as an attractive alternative to both delay any late-stage progression of hyper inflammation process in COVID-19 and remove the toxins involved in acute liver failure.

A Comparison of Differences Between the Systemic Pharmacokinetics of Levobupivacaine and Ropivacaine During Continuous Epidural Infusion: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidural infusion of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine provides adequate postoperative pain management by minimizing side effects related to IV opioids and improving patient outcome. The safety profile of different drugs can be better estimated by comparing their pharmacokinetic profiles than by considering their objective side effects. Because levobupivacaine and ropivacaine have different pharmacokinetic properties, our aim was to investigate whether there is a difference in the pharmacokinetic variability of the 2 drugs in a homogeneous population undergoing continuous epidural infusion. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial study was designed to compare the pharmacokinetics of continuous thoracic epidural infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125% or ropivacaine 0.2% for postoperative pain management in adult patients who had undergone major abdominal, urological, or gynecological surgery. This study is focused on the evaluation of the coefficient of variation (CV) to assess the equivalence in the systemic exposure and interindividual variability between levobupivacaine and ropivacaine and, therefore, the possible differences in the predictability of the plasmatic concentrations of the 2 drugs during thoracic epidural infusion. METHODS: One hundred eighty-one adults undergoing major abdominal surgery were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized to receive an epidural infusion of levobupivacaine 0.125% + sufentanil 0.75 µg/mL or of ropivacaine 0.2% + sufentanil 0.75 µg/mL at 5 mL/h for 48 hours. The primary end point of this study was to analyze the variability of plasma concentration of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine via an area under the curve within a range of 15% of the CV during 48 hours of continuous epidural infusion. The CV shows how the concentration values of local anesthetics are scattered around the median concentration value, thus indicating the extent to which plasma concentration is predictable during infusion. Secondary end points were to assess the pharmacologic profile of the local anesthetics used in the study, including an analysis of mean peak plasma concentrations, and also to assess plasma clearance, side effects, pain intensity (measured with a verbal numeric ranging score, i.e., static Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] and dynamic NRS]), and the need for rescue doses. RESULTS: The comparison between the 2 CVs showed no statistical difference: the difference between area under the curve was within the range of 15%. The CV was 0.54 for levobupivacaine and 0.51 for ropivacaine (P = 0.725). The plasma concentrations of ropivacaine approached the Cmax significantly faster than those of levobupivacaine. Clearance of ropivacaine decreases with increasing patient age. There were no significant differences in NRS, dynamic NRS scores, the number of rescue doses, or in side effects between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the CV, the interindividual variability of plasma concentration for levobupivacaine and ropivacaine is equivalent after thoracic epidural infusion in adults. We found a reduction in clearance of ropivacaine depending on patient age, but this finding could be the result of some limitations of our study. The steady-state concentration was not reached during the 48-hour infusion and the behavior of plasma concentrations of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine during continuous infusions lasting more than 48 hours remains to be investigated, because they could reach toxic levels. Finally, no differences in the clinical efficacy or in the incidence of adverse effects between groups were found for either local anesthetic.

Role of lumbosacral retrograde neuromodulation in the treatment of painful disorders.

BACKGROUND: Neuromodulation is an effective and reversible treatment option for chronic intractable pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) represents a field of application of neuromodulation and is known to be effective for several conditions including complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), and chronic leg and back pain. SCS has some technical limitations that can be bypassed through retrograde neuromodulation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of retrograde neuromodulation in consecutive patients with neuropathic pain in the perineum or lower limb. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective chart review analyzing one year of retrograde stimulation in our department. METHODS: We present a series of 10 patients who underwent retrograde neuromodulation at the University General Hospital of Valencia (Spain). We analyzed the variables that can improve the outcome and help physicians choose retrograde neuromodulation. RESULTS: Seven of 10 patients had an effective treatment and 3 patients had an ineffective stimulation. In the group with the effective treatment the most represented type of pain was radiculopathy and perineal pain. LIMITATIONS: This is a prospective, single-center study with a relatively small number of patients and no control group. CONCLUSION: Retrograde neuromodulation seems to be effective in patients that present with a well localized pain with a clear dermatome distribution. We found retrograde neuromodulation to be effective in radiculopathy related to FBSS. We found it to be limited in the treatment of perineal pain probably due to technical limitations and anatomical reasons besides the lack of knowledge of the etiology of this pain model and the exact mechanisms of action of neuromodulation.