RESUMEN
Aim: To evaluate coagulofibrinolytic abnormalities and the effects of ART-123 (recombinant human thrombomodulin alpha) in a porcine model of cardiac arrest and prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CA/CPR). Methods: Fifteen pigs (n = 5 per group) underwent 8 minutes of no-flow CA followed by 50 minutes of mechanical CPR, while 2 pigs underwent sham arrest. CA/CPR animals were randomized to receive saline or 1 mg/kg ART-123 pre-arrest (5 minutes prior to ventricular fibrillation) or post-arrest (2 minutes after initiation of CPR). Arterial and venous blood samples were drawn at multiple time points for blood gas analysis and measurement of plasma and whole blood markers of coagulation and fibrinolysis. Results: In saline-treated CA/CPR, but not sham animals, robust and persistent activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis was observed throughout resuscitation. After 50 minutes of CPR, plasma tests and thromboelastography indicated a mix of hypercoagulability and consumptive coagulopathy. ART-123 had a robust anticoagulant effect, reducing both thrombin-antithrombin (TAT) complexes and d-dimer (p < 0.05 for each). The duration of anticoagulant effect varied depending on the timing of ART-123 administration. Similarly, ART-123 when given prior to cardiac arrest was found to have pro-fibrinolytic effects, increasing free tissue plasminogen activator (tPA, p = 0.02) and decreasing free plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1, p = 0.04). Conclusion: A porcine model of prolonged CA/CPR reproduces many of the coagulofibrinolytic abnormalities observed in human cardiac arrest patients. ART-123 demonstrates a combination of anticoagulant and profibrinolytic effects, depending on the timing of its administration relative to cardiac arrest.
RESUMEN
Importance: Breath analysis has been explored as a noninvasive means to detect COVID-19. However, the impact of emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2, such as Omicron, on the exhaled breath profile and diagnostic accuracy of breath analysis is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of breath analysis on detecting patients with COVID-19 when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants were most prevalent. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study included a cohort of patients who had positive and negative test results for COVID-19 using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction between April 2021 and May 2022, which covers the period when the Delta variant was overtaken by Omicron as the major variant. Patients were enrolled through intensive care units and the emergency department at the University of Michigan Health System. Patient breath was analyzed with portable gas chromatography. Main Outcomes and Measures: Different sets of VOC biomarkers were identified that distinguished between COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants) and non-COVID-19 illness. Results: Overall, 205 breath samples from 167 adult patients were analyzed. A total of 77 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [16.1] years; 41 [53.2%] male patients; 13 [16.9%] Black and 59 [76.6%] White patients) had COVID-19, and 91 patients (mean [SD] age, 54.3 [17.1] years; 43 [47.3%] male patients; 11 [12.1%] Black and 76 [83.5%] White patients) had non-COVID-19 illness. Several patients were analyzed over multiple days. Among 94 positive samples, 41 samples were from patients in 2021 infected with the Delta or other variants, and 53 samples were from patients in 2022 infected with the Omicron variant, based on the State of Michigan and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance data. Four VOC biomarkers were found to distinguish between COVID-19 (Delta and other 2021 variants) and non-COVID-19 illness with an accuracy of 94.7%. However, accuracy dropped substantially to 82.1% when these biomarkers were applied to the Omicron variant. Four new VOC biomarkers were found to distinguish the Omicron variant and non-COVID-19 illness (accuracy, 90.9%). Breath analysis distinguished Omicron from the earlier variants with an accuracy of 91.5% and COVID-19 (all SARS-CoV-2 variants) vs non-COVID-19 illness with 90.2% accuracy. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this diagnostic study suggest that breath analysis has promise for COVID-19 detection. However, similar to rapid antigen testing, the emergence of new variants poses diagnostic challenges. The results of this study warrant additional evaluation on how to overcome these challenges to use breath analysis to improve the diagnosis and care of patients.
