Thrombotic circuit complications during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19.

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting disease COVID-19 causes pulmonary failure including severe courses requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). Coagulopathy is a known complication of COVID-19 leading to thrombotic events including pulmonary embolism. It is unclear if the coagulopathy also increases thrombotic circuit complications of the ECMO. Aim of the present study therefor was to investigate the rate of V-V ECMO complications in COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective registry study including all patients on V-V ECMO treated at our centre between 01/2018 and 04/2020. COVID-19 cases were compared non- COVID-19 cases. All circuit related complications resulting in partial or complete exchange of the extracorporeal system were registered. In total, 66 patients were analysed of which 11 (16.7%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The two groups did not differ in clinical parameters including age (COVID-19 59.4 vs. non-COVID-19 58.1 years), gender (36.4% vs. 40%), BMI (27.8 vs. 24.2) and severity of illness as quantified by the RESP Score (1pt. vs 1pt.). 28 days survival was similar in both groups (72.7% vs. 58.2%). While anticoagulation was similar in both groups (p = 0.09), centrifugal pump head thrombosis was more frequent in COVID-19 (9/11 versus 16/55 p < 0.01). Neither the time to first exchange (p = 0.61) nor blood flow at exchange (p = 0.68) did differ in both groups. D-dimer levels prior to the thrombotic events were significantly higher in COVID-19 (mean 15.48 vs 26.59, p = 0.01). The SARS-CoV-2 induced infection is associated with higher rates of thrombotic events of the extracorporeal system during V-V ECMO therapy.

Education of medical personnel optimizes filling volume of blood culture bottles without negatively affecting microbiology testing.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is a risk factor for adverse outcomes, which can be aggravated by unnecessary phlebotomies. In blood culture testing, up to 30 ml of blood can be withdrawn per sample, even though most manufacturers recommend blood volumes of 10 ml or less. After assessing the filling volume of blood culture bottles at our institution, we investigated whether an educational intervention could optimize filling volume of blood culture bottles without negatively affecting microbiology testing. METHODS: We weighed 10,147 blood cultures before and 11,806 blood cultures after a six-month educational intervention, during which employees were trained regarding correct filling volume via lectures, handouts, emails, and posters placed at strategic places. RESULTS: Before the educational intervention, only 31% of aerobic and 34% of anaerobic blood cultures were filled correctly with 5-10 ml of blood. The educational intervention increased the percentage of correctly filled bottles to 43% (P < 0.001) for both aerobic and anaerobic samples without negatively affecting results of microbiologic testing. In addition, sample volume was reduced from 11.0 ± 6.5 to 9.4 ± 5.1 ml (P < 0.001) in aerobic bottles and from 10.1 ± 5.6 to 8.8 ± 4.8 ml (P < 0.001) in anaerobic bottles. CONCLUSION: Education of medical personnel is a simple and effective way to reduce iatrogenic blood loss and possibly moderate the extent of phlebotomy-induced anemia.

da Vinci and Open Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Analysis of Insurance Costs.

PURPOSE: To assess clinical outcomes and reimbursement costs of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies in Germany. METHODS: Perioperative data of 499 open (2003-2006) and 932 (2008-2010) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies as well as longitudinal reimbursement costs of an anonymized health insurance research database from Germany containing data of patients who underwent robotic-assisted or open radical prostatectomy were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre study. RESULTS: Significantly better outcomes after robotic-assisted vs. open prostatectomy were observed in regards to positive surgical margins (13.3 vs. 22.4%; p < 0.0001), intraoperative transfusions (0.1 vs. 2.6%; p < 0.0001), hospitalization (8.7 vs. 15.2 days; p < 0.0001) and duration of catheter (6.6 vs. 12.8 days; p < 0.0001). Operating time was significantly longer with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when compared to open surgery (184.4 vs. 128.0 min; p < 0.0001), while intraoperative complications showed a similar occurrence between both groups. Significant fewer postoperative complications were observed after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (26.5 vs. 42.5%; p < 0.0001) and rate of re-admission was lower for the robotic patients (13.6 vs. 19.4%; p = 0.0050). While insurance costs were higher in the 2 years before radical prostatectomy for the patients who underwent a robotic procedure (4,241.60 vs. 3,410.23 €; p = 0.202), additive costs of care of the year of surgery plus the 2 following years were less for the robotic cohort when compared to the costs incurred by the open group (21,673.71 vs. 24,512.37 €; p = 0.1676). CONCLUSIONS: The observed clinical advantages of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy seem to result in reduced health insurance cost postoperatively when compared to open surgery. This should be taken into consideration regarding reimbursement and implementation of a clinically superior method.