Intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins in critical COVID-19: a multicentre propensity-weighted cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A profound inflammation-mediated lung injury with long-term acute respiratory distress and high mortality is one of the major complications of critical COVID-19. Immunoglobulin M (IgM)-enriched immunoglobulins seem especially capable of mitigating the inflicted inflammatory harm. However, the efficacy of intravenous IgM-enriched preparations in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is largely unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentric cohort study, 316 patients with laboratory-confirmed critical COVID-19 were treated in ten German and Austrian ICUs between May 2020 and April 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Analysis was performed by Cox regression models. Covariate adjustment was performed by propensity score weighting using machine learning-based SuperLearner to overcome the selection bias due to missing randomization. In addition, a subgroup analysis focusing on different treatment regimens and patient characteristics was performed. RESULTS: Of the 316 ICU patients, 146 received IgM-enriched immunoglobulins and 170 cases did not, which served as controls. There was no survival difference between the two groups in terms of mortality at 30 days in the overall cohort (HRadj: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.25; p = 0.374). An improved 30-day survival in patients without mechanical ventilation at the time of the immunoglobulin treatment did not reach statistical significance (HRadj: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.08; p = 0.063). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed in the subgroup when a daily dose of ≥ 15 g and a duration of ≥ 3 days of IgM-enriched immunoglobulins were applied (HRadj: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.03; p = 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: Although we cannot prove a statistically reliable effect of intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins, the confidence intervals may suggest a clinically relevant effect in certain subgroups. Here, an early administration (i.e. in critically ill but not yet mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients) and a dose of ≥ 15 g for at least 3 days may confer beneficial effects without concerning safety issues. However, these findings need to be validated in upcoming randomized clinical trials. Trial registration DRKS00025794 , German Clinical Trials Register, https://www.drks.de . Registered 6 July 2021.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-COVID induced sepsis survival.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on health care systems worldwide, which has led to increased mortality of different diseases like myocardial infarction. This is most likely due to three factors. First, an increased workload per nurse ratio, a factor associated with mortality. Second, patients presenting with COVID-19-like symptoms are isolated, which also decreases survival in cases of emergency. And third, patients hesitate to see a doctor or present themselves at a hospital. To assess if this is also true for sepsis patients, we asked whether non-COVID-19 sepsis patients had an increased 30-day mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the SepsisDataNet.NRW study, a multicentric, prospective study that includes septic patients fulfilling the SEPSIS-3 criteria. Within this study, we compared the 30-day mortality and disease severity of patients recruited pre-pandemic (recruited from March 2018 until February 2020) with non-COVID-19 septic patients recruited during the pandemic (recruited from March 2020 till December 2020). RESULTS: Comparing septic patients recruited before the pandemic to those recruited during the pandemic, we found an increased raw 30-day mortality in sepsis-patients recruited during the pandemic (33% vs. 52%, p = 0.004). We also found a significant difference in the severity of disease at recruitment (SOFA score pre-pandemic: 8 (5 - 11) vs. pandemic: 10 (8 - 13); p < 0.001). When adjusted for this, the 30-day mortality rates were not significantly different between the two groups (52% vs. 52% pre-pandemic and pandemic, p = 0.798). CONCLUSIONS: This led us to believe that the higher mortality of non-COVID19 sepsis patients during the pandemic might be attributed to a more severe septic disease at the time of recruitment. We note that patients may experience a delayed admission, as indicated by elevated SOFA scores. This could explain the higher mortality during the pandemic and we found no evidence for a diminished quality of care for critically ill sepsis patients in German intensive care units.

Does a combined intravenous-volatile anesthesia offer advantages compared to an intravenous or volatile anesthesia alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In anesthesia, additive drug interactions are used for reducing dose and dose-dependent side-effects. The combination of propofol with volatile anesthetics is rather unusual but might have advantages compared to the single use regarding PONV, time to extubation, movement during surgery and postoperative pain perception. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for relevant studies comparing combined intravenous volatile anesthesia with total intravenous or balanced anesthesia. The studies identified were summarized in a meta-analysis with the standardized mean difference or risk ratio as the effect size. RESULTS: Ten studies provided data. The risk for PONV in the recovery room was significantly reduced for a combined anesthesia compared to a balanced anesthesia (RR 0.657, CI 0.502-0.860, p-value 0.002). There was no significant difference detected either in the time to extubation or in pain perception. Movement during surgery was significantly reduced for a combined compared to a total intravenous anesthesia (RR 0.241, CI 0.135-0.428, p-value 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of propofol and volatiles may have some advantages in the early occurrence of PONV compared to a balanced anesthesia. To sufficiently evaluate potential advantages of a combination of volatiles and propofol further high-quality trials are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019126627 .

Assessing SOFA score trajectories in sepsis using machine learning: A pragmatic approach to improve the accuracy of mortality prediction.

INTRODUCTION: An increasing amount of longitudinal health data is available on critically ill septic patients in the age of digital medicine, including daily sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score measurements. Thus, the assessment in sepsis focuses increasingly on the evaluation of the individual disease's trajectory. Machine learning (ML) algorithms may provide a promising approach here to improve the evaluation of daily SOFA score dynamics. We tested whether ML algorithms can outperform the conventional ΔSOFA score regarding the accuracy of 30-day mortality prediction. METHODS: We used the multicentric SepsisDataNet.NRW study cohort that prospectively enrolled 252 sepsis patients between 03/2018 and 09/2019 for training ML algorithms, i.e. support vector machine (SVM) with polynomial kernel and artificial neural network (aNN). We used the Amsterdam UMC database covering 1,790 sepsis patients for external and independent validation. RESULTS: Both SVM (AUC 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-0.96) and aNN (AUC 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.95) assessing the SOFA scores of the first seven days led to a more accurate prognosis of 30-day mortality compared to the ΔSOFA score between day 1 and 7 (AUC 0.73; 95% CI: 0.65-0.80; p = 0.02 and p = 0.05, respectively). These differences were even more prominent the shorter the time interval considered. Using the SOFA scores of day 1 to 3 SVM (AUC 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68 0.95) and aNN (AUC 0.80; 95% CI: 0.660.93) led to a more accurate prognosis of 30-day mortality compared to the ΔSOFA score (AUC 0.66; 95% CI: 0.58-0.74; p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). Strikingly, all these findings could be confirmed in the independent external validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The ML-based algorithms using daily SOFA scores markedly improved the accuracy of mortality compared to the conventional ΔSOFA score. Therefore, this approach could provide a promising and automated approach to assess the individual disease trajectory in sepsis. These findings reflect the potential of incorporating ML algorithms as robust and generalizable support tools on intensive care units.

Exploring the relationship between HCMV serostatus and outcomes in COVID-19 sepsis.

Background: Sepsis, a life-threatening condition caused by the dysregulated host response to infection, is a major global health concern. Understanding the impact of viral or bacterial pathogens in sepsis is crucial for improving patient outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) seropositivity as a risk factor for development of sepsis in patients with COVID-19. Methods: A multicenter observational study enrolled 95 intensive care patients with COVID-19-induced sepsis and 80 post-surgery individuals as controls. HCMV serostatus was determined using an ELISA test. Comprehensive clinical data, including demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day mortality, were collected. Statistical analyses evaluated the association between HCMV seropositivity and COVID-19 induced sepsis. Results: The prevalence of HCMV seropositivity did not significantly differ between COVID-19-induced sepsis patients (78%) and controls (71%, p = 0.382) in the entire cohort. However, among patients aged ≤60 years, HCMV seropositivity was significantly higher in COVID-19 sepsis patients compared to controls (86% vs 61%, respectively; p = 0.030). Nevertheless, HCMV serostatus did not affect 30-day survival. Discussion: These findings confirm the association between HCMV seropositivity and COVID-19 sepsis in non-geriatric patients. However, the lack of an independent effect on 30-day survival can be explained by the cross-reactivity of HCMV specific CD8+ T-cells towards SARS-CoV-2 peptides, which might confer some protection to HCMV seropositive patients. The inclusion of a post-surgery control group strengthens the generalizability of the findings. Further research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of this association, explore different patient populations, and identify interventions for optimizing patient management. Conclusion: This study validates the association between HCMV seropositivity and severe COVID-19-induced sepsis in non-geriatric patients, contributing to the growing body of evidence on viral pathogens in sepsis. Although HCMV serostatus did not independently influence 30-day survival, future investigations should focus on unraveling the intricate interplay between HCMV, immune responses, and COVID-19. These insights will aid in risk stratification and the development of targeted interventions for viral sepsis.

Learning endotracheal intubation using a novel videolaryngoscope improves intubation skills of medical students.

INTRODUCTION: Teaching endotracheal intubation to medical students is a task provided by many academic anesthesia departments. We tested the hypothesis that teaching with a novel videolaryngoscope improves students' intubation skills. METHODS: We prospectively assessed in medical students (2nd clinical year) intubation skills acquired by intubation attempts in adult anesthetized patients during a 60-hour clinical course using, in a randomized fashion, either a conventional Macintosh blade laryngoscope or a videolaryngoscope (C-MAC®). The latter permits direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade and provides a color image on a video screen. Skills were measured before and after the course in a standardized fashion (METI Emergency Care Simulator) using a conventional laryngoscope. All 1-semester medical students (n = 93) were enrolled. RESULTS: The students' performance did not significantly differ between groups before the course. After the course, students trained with the videolaryngoscope had an intubation success rate on a manikin 19% higher (95% CI 1.1%-35.3%; P < 0.001) and intubated 11 seconds faster (95% CI 4-18) when compared with those trained using a conventional laryngoscope. The incidence of "difficult (manikin) laryngoscopy" was less frequent in the group trained with the videolaryngoscope (8% vs 34%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Education using a video system mounted into a traditional Macintosh blade improves intubation skills in medical students.