Safety of Supraclavicular Approach for Dual-Lumen Catheter Placement in Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Case Report.

In veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO), the dual-lumen catheter (DLC) facilitates mobility, reduces recirculation, and mitigates the risk of infection. The right internal jugular vein (IJV) is the most common site for DLC insertion. Still, it is often unavailable for various reasons, including local infection, hematoma, or thrombus. A 64-year-old male patient with mantle lymphoma, which was in remission after autogenous blood transplantation, suffered lung damage and refractory pneumothorax from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and required V-V ECMO treatment initiated on day 39. The patient was unable to be weaned off V-V ECMO due to uncontrolled high serum carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and required long-term V-V ECMO treatment for more than 80 days. DLC placement was necessary to implement aggressive rehabilitation, reduce puncture site-induced infections, and reduce recirculation. On day 119, a supraclavicular approach was used for DLC placement under fluoroscopic guidance using ultrasound guidance because a thrombus in the right IJV prevented the DLC insertion at a usual puncture site. Rehabilitation was safely performed at a higher intensity than preoperatively of DLC insertion. Overall, the DLC catheter was maintained for more than 30 days until the patient died due to septic shock by an unknown focus on day 150, with no complications such as bleeding or infection. This case report highlights the significance of using the supraclavicular approach for DLC placement in V-V ECMO in cases where IJV is not possible due to thrombus presence. In conclusion, the supraclavicular approach is safe and feasible for V-V ECMO insertion as an alternative to the IJV.

Thromboembolic events in hospitalised patients with COVID-19: ecological assessment with a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Thrombosis is a common complication of the novel COVID-19. Pre-COVID-19 studies reported racial differences in the risk of developing thrombosis. This study aimed to describe the geographical variations in the reported incidences and outcomes of thromboembolic events and thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. The final search for randomised clinical trials was carried out in January 2022. Screening eligible articles and data extraction were independently performed in duplicate by multiple reviewers. DESIGN: Scoping review. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Libraries were searched using terms related to COVID-19 and thromboembolism. SETTING: Hospitals all over the world. PARTICIPANTS: In-hospital patients with COVID-19. OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and the prophylactic anticoagulation therapy. RESULTS: In total, 283 studies were eligible, representing (239 observational studies, 39 case series and 7 interventional studies). The incidence of DVT was the highest in Asia (40.8%) and hospital mortality was high (22.7%). However, the incidence of PE was not very high in Asia (3.2%). On the contrary, the incidence of PE was the highest in the Middle East (16.2%) and Europe (14. 6%). Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin was the main treatment provided in all areas. Four of the seven randomised clinical trials were conducted internationally. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of DVT was the highest in Asia. The incidence of PE was higher in the Middle East and Europe; however, detection bias during the pandemic cannot be ruled out. There were no major differences in the type or dose of prophylactic anticoagulants used for thromboprophylaxis among the regions.

Unfractionated heparin versus nafamostat mesylate for anticoagulation during continuous kidney replacement therapy: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin sodium and nafamostat mesylate have long been used as anticoagulants in continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) where citrate is unavailable. This study aimed to determine whether heparin or nafamostat mesylate used during CKRT was associated with a longer filter life. METHODS: In this single-centre observational study, we included adult patients who required CKRT and used heparin or nafamostat mesylate for their first CKRT in the intensive care unit from September 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was filter life (from the start to the end of using the first filter). We used propensity score matching to adjust for the imbalance in patients' characteristics and laboratory data at the start of CKRT and compared the outcomes between the two groups. We also performed restricted mean survival time analysis to compare the filter survival times. RESULTS: We included 286 patients, 157 patients on heparin and 129 patients on nafamostat mesylate. After propensity score matching, the mean filter life with heparin was 1.58 days (N = 91, Standard deviation [SD], 1.52) and with nafamostat mesylate was 1.06 days (N = 91, SD, 0.94, p = 0.006). Multivariable regression analysis adjusted for confounding factors supported that heparin was associated with a longer filter life compared with nafamostat mesylate (regression coefficient, days, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.15, 0.89]). The between group difference of the restricted mean filter survival time in the matched cohort was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.07-0.50, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Compared to nafamostat mesylate, heparin was associated with one-third to one-half a day longer filter life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Non-invasive oxygenation strategies for respiratory failure with COVID-19: A concise narrative review of literature in pre and mid-COVID-19 era.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally and can cause a shortage of medical resources, in particular, mechanical ventilators. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) are frequently used for acute respiratory failure patients as alternatives to invasive mechanical ventilation. They are drawing attention because of a potential role to save mechanical ventilators. However, their effectiveness and risk of viral spread are unclear. The latest network meta-analysis of pre-COVID-19 trials reported that treatment with non-invasive oxygenation strategies was associated with improved survival when compared with conventional oxygen therapy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a lot of clinical research on COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure has been reported. Several observational studies and small trials have suggested HFNC or NPPV as an alternative of standard oxygen therapy to manage COVID-19 related acute respiratory failure, provided that appropriate infection prevention is applied by health care workers to avoid risks of the virus transmission. Awake proning is an emerging strategy to optimise the management of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. However, the benefits of awake proning have yet to be assessed in properly designed clinical research. Although HFNC and NPPV are probably effective for acute respiratory failure, the safety data are mostly based on observational and experimental reports. As such, they should be implemented carefully if adequate personal protective equipment and negative pressure rooms are available.