Evaluation of Cangrelor Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Mechanical Circulatory Support.

OBJECTIVES: To describe cangrelor use in patients on concurrent mechanical circulatory support who underwent postpercutaneous coronary intervention. DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective, cohort study. SETTING: At a quaternary teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Included patients were ≥18 years old, admitted to the intensive care unit, underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement, initiated on mechanical circulatory support, and received cangrelor in the postpercutaneous coronary intervention period. INTERVENTIONS: Retrospectively analyzed cangrelor use in patients on mechanical circulatory support. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the incidence of thrombosis and bleeding events during cangrelor administration. Additional outcomes included initial cangrelor dose, number of cangrelor dose adjustments per patient, survival from mechanical circulatory support, and mortality within 30 days. Overall, 19 patients were included in this study. In total, 14 patients (74%) experienced a bleeding event; however, 93% were classified as a minor bleed. There was 1 major bleeding event. There were no thrombotic events observed during cangrelor administration. The median initial cangrelor dose was 0.5 µg/kg/min. There were 10 patients who underwent dose adjustment, with the majority being dose reductions based on antiplatelet monitoring (VerifyNow assay). Survival from mechanical circulatory support occurred in 17 patients (89%), and 30-day mortality occurred in 8 patients (42%). CONCLUSIONS: For patients receiving cangrelor as a bridge to oral P2Y12 inhibitor therapy on mechanical circulatory support, the authors observed a low rate of major bleeding and no episodes of thrombosis. Lower starting doses appear feasible with no observed increased risk of thrombotic complications. Future studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Evaluation of Continuous Inhaled Epoprostenol in the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Including Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) management is primarily supportive. Pulmonary vasodilators, such as inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO), have been shown to improve PaO2:FiO2 (PF) and are used as adjunctive therapy. OBJECTIVE: To identify the positive response rate and variables associated with response to iEPO in adults with ARDS. A positive response to iEPO was defined as a 10% improvement in PF within 6 hours. METHODS: This retrospective study included adults with ARDS treated with iEPO. The primary endpoint was the variables associated with a positive response to iEPO. Secondary endpoints were positive response rate and the change in PF and SpO2:FiO2 within 6 hours. Statistical analysis included multivariable regression. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-one patients were included. As baseline PF increased, the odds of responding to iEPO decreased (odds ratio [OR], 0.752, 95% CI, 0.69-0.819, p < 0.001). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related ARDS (OR 0.478, 95% CI, 0.281-0.814, p = 0.007) was associated with decreased odds of a positive response to iEPO. The total population had a 68.3% positive response rate to iEPO. SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS and non-SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS had a 59.5% and 72.7% positive response rate, respectively. iEPO significantly improved PF (71 vs 95, P < 0.001) in the whole population. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: iEPO was associated with a positive effect in a majority of moderate-to-severe ARDS patients, including patients with SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS. Lower baseline PF and non-SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS were significantly associated with a positive response to iEPO. The ability to predict which patients will respond to iEPO can facilitate better utilization.

Angiotensin II in Patients With Shock on Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Single-Center Retrospective Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: To describe angiotensin II (ANGII) use in patients on mechanical circulatory support (MCS). To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ANGII in patients with shock on MCS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A single-center, quaternary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised critically ill patients on MCS. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen patients were included in this retrospective analysis. The median age was 54 years (44.8, 68.3) and 78.6% were men. Six patients were receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, 4 patients were receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and 4 patients were on left ventricular assist devices. Five patients (36%) achieved hemodynamic response to ANGII at 3 hours, defined as a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of ≥65 mmHg or a 10-mmHg increase in MAP with a decrease or no change in total vasopressor dose. Overall, the median MAP increased from 61 mmHg (51, 73) at baseline to 66 mmHg (58, 71) at 3 hours, and the median norepinephrine dose decreased from 0.45 µg/kg/min (0.28, 0.6) at baseline to 0.2 µg/kg/min (0.18, 0.32) at 3 hours. The in-hospital mortality rate was 78.6%. Two patients experienced severe adverse drug events and 1 patient had a sentinel thrombotic event. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that ANGII may provide a salvage treatment option in patients on MCS with refractory vasodilatory shock. There are several safety considerations with the use of ANGII in these patients. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ANGII in patients on MCS.

Association between a low-risk COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation criteria and mortality: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients who met a low-risk inclusion criteria for veno-venous extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) with those who did not meet criteria due to higher risk but were subsequently cannulated. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study that included adult patients who were placed on VV ECMO for COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at a tertiary care academic medical center. The primary outcome was the association between the low-risk criteria and mortality. The patients met the criteria if they met EOLIA severe ARDS criteria, no absolute contraindications (age > 60 years, BMI > 55 kg/m2, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration >7 days, irreversible neurologic damage, chronic lung disease, active malignancy, or advanced multiorgan dysfunction), and had three or less relative contraindications (age > 50 years, BMI > 45 kg/m2, comorbidities, MV duration > 4 days, acute kidney injury, receiving vasopressors, hospital LOS > 14 days, or COVID-19 diagnosis > 4 weeks). RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were included from March 2020 through March 2022. Patients were stratified into low-risk or high-risk categories. The median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 7 and the median PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 44 at the time of ECMO cannulation. The in-hospital mortality was 47.8% in the low-risk group and 69.0% in the high-risk group (p = 0.096). CONCLUSION: There was not a statistically significant difference in survival between low-risk patients and high-risk patients; however, there was a trend toward higher survival in the lower-risk group.

Anti-Xa Directed Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Objective: To compare Anti-Xa directed thromboprophylaxis using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (anti-Xa peak goal 0.2-0.5 IU/mL) to alternative anticoagulation strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, multicenter, single health-system study. Primary outcomes were thromboembolic events and clinically important bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included dosing comparisons between LMWH cohorts. Main Results: A total of 695 patients were included. No differences were found in the incidence of thrombotic events with any of the dosing strategies. The incidence of major bleeding was significantly higher in the standard dose thromboprophylaxis, intermediate dose subcutaneous heparin (SQH), and therapeutic anticoagulation cohorts. Forty-nine percent of patients within the anti-Xa directed group had their first anti-Xa peak at goal, while 43% were above goal. Patients who had levels above goal had dose modifications made, therefore anti-Xa directed LMWH resulted in significantly lower total daily doses compared to intermediate dose LMWH. Conclusions: Anti-Xa directed LMWH dosing provided comparable thromboprophylaxis with lower total daily doses of LMWH in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.