Correlation of Vital Signs and Depth of Sedation by Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) Scale in Bronchoscopy.

BACKGROUND: With complex, lengthy bronchoscopies, there is a need for safe, effective sedation. Most bronchoscopists strive for moderate sedation, though often difficult without compromising vital signs. The Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) scale is a validated 6-point scale assessing responsiveness of patients coinciding with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) continuum of sedation. It is commonly used in studying bronchoscopic sedation, but depth of sedation by MOAA/S and correlation with vital signs and adverse events has not been determined. METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of remimazolam. MOAA/S and corresponding vital signs were used to assess the effect of the level of sedation on vital signs and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 23,341 MOAA/S scores from 431 patients were recorded. Older and higher ASA class patients spent more time in deeper sedation (MOAA/S 0 to 1) (6% vs. 2%, P=0.01). Oxygen saturation was equal in deep sedation (MOAA/S 0 to 1) (97±3%) compared with moderate sedation (96±3%) (P=0.11). Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly lower when comparing MOAA/S 0 to 1 to MOAA/S 5 (systolic blood pressure: 126±19 vs. 147±24 mm Hg, P<0.01; diastolic blood pressure: 68±14 vs. 84±15 mm Hg, P<0.01). There was a nonsignificant trend towards lower heart rate at deep versus moderate sedation (84±15 vs. 94±18 beats/min, P=0.07). Respiratory rate was also comparable with moderate and deep sedation (17±5 vs. 18±6 beats/min, P=0.94). CONCLUSION: There was no clinically meaningful correlation between vital signs and depth of sedation assessed by MOAA/S. Older and higher ASA class patients spend more time in deeper sedation. However, when in deep sedation, there was no difference in vital signs other than a slightly increased incidence of clinically insignificant hypotension.

Efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange in the treatment of penn class 3 and 4 cytokine release syndrome complicating COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a potentially severe complication of COVID-19 most commonly resulting in respiratory failure. This ten-patient study was designed to determine the efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in improving oxygenation and in reducing the cytokine load in a critically ill subset of patients. METHODS: Five single volume plasma exchanges over eight days within a 14-day study period. In mechanically ventilated patients, oxygenation was measured via the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio and the oxygenation index (OI) daily for 14 days. Supplemental oxygen requirements were tracked daily for non-ventilated patients. RESULTS: Non-ventilated patients were liberated from supplemental oxygen after TPE. The response was rapid with an 87% average reduction in oxygenation requirements following and average time to return to room air of 5.25 days. All mechanically ventilated patients demonstrated improvement in oxygenation with a 78% average improvement in the P/F ratio and a 43% improvement in OI. C-reactive protein (CRP) and serum levels of IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNFα, IFNγ and GM-CSF, were measured daily with immediate post TPE levels drawn on days 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8. All patients demonstrated significant reductions in CRP, IL-6, IL-10 and TNFα. CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of patients with Penn class 3 and 4 CRS complicating COVID-19, TPE demonstrated a prompt improvement in oxygenation and reduction in cytokine load without compromising patient safety. As this pilot study was envisioned to be hypothesis generating, expanded trials using TPE alone and in conjunction with novel pharmacologic agents are warranted. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04374149.

Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared With Placebo and Midazolam for Moderate Sedation During Bronchoscopy.

BACKGROUND: While the complexity of flexible bronchoscopy has increased, standard options for moderate sedation medications have not changed in three decades. There is a need to improve moderate sedation while maintaining safety. Remimazolam was developed to address shortcomings of current sedation strategies. METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group trial was performed at 30 US sites. The efficacy and safety of remimazolam for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy were compared with placebo and open-label midazolam. RESULTS: The success rates were 80.6% in the remimazolam arm, 4.8% in the placebo arm (P < .0001), and 32.9% in the midazolam arm. Bronchoscopy was started sooner in the remimazolam arm (mean, 6.4 ± 5.82 min) compared with placebo (17.2 ± 4.15 min; P < .0001) and midazolam (16.3 ± 8.60 min). Time to full alertness after the end of bronchoscopy was significantly shorter in patients treated with remimazolam (median, 6.0 min; 95% CI, 5.2-7.1) compared with those treated with placebo (13.6 min; 95% CI, 8.1-24.0; P = .0001) and midazolam (12.0 min; 95% CI, 5.0-15.0). Remimazolam registered superior restoration of neuropsychiatric function compared with placebo and midazolam. Safety was comparable among all three arms, and 5.6% of the patients in the remimazolam group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events as compared with 6.8% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam administered under the supervision of a pulmonologist was effective and safe for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. In an exploratory analysis, it demonstrated a shorter onset of action and faster neuropsychiatric recovery than midazolam.