Preliminary report of extracorporeal blood purification therapy in patients receiving LVAD: Cytosorb or Jafron HA330.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) candidates are at increased risk of immune dysregulation and infectious complications. To attenuate the elevated proinflammatory cytokine levels and associated adverse clinical outcomes, it has been postulated that extracorporeal blood purification could improve the overall survival rate and morbidity of patients undergoing LVAD implantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of 15 patients who underwent LVAD implantation at our center between January 2021 and March 2022. Of these, 15 (100%) who received HeartMate 3™ (St. Jude Medical, Abbott, MN, USA) device were eligible. Intraoperatively, patients were single randomized 1:1:1 to three groups: group 1, patients who received Cytosorb therapy (n = 5; installed in the CPB circuit); group 2, patients who received Jafron HA330 (n = 5; installed in the CPB circuit); and control group 3, patients who did not receive filter (n = 5; usual care, neither Cytosorb nor Jafron during CPB). Baseline patient characteristics and intraoperative data were compared between the groups. Blood sample analyses were performed to assess the levels of inflammatory markers (IL-1, 6, 8; CRP, Leukocyte, Lactate, PCT, NT-proBNP, TNF-α) in both preoperative and postoperative data. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar in all three groups. We found that IL1α; IL 6; IL8; Lactatedehydrogenase, PCT, pro-BNP, CRP; Leukocyte, and TNFα levels significantly increased with LVAD implantation and that neither Cytosorb nor Jafron influenced this response. In-hospital mortality and overall survival during follow-up were similar among the groups. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary results showed that hemoadsorption therapy using Cytosorb or Jafron hemoadsorption (HA) 330 may not be clinically beneficial for patients with advanced heart failure undergoing LVAD implantation. Large prospective studies are needed to evaluate the potential role of HA therapy in improving outcomes in patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

Prospective, Randomized Study of Fibrinogen Concentrate Versus Cryoprecipitate for Correcting Hypofibrinogenemia in Cardiac Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is associated with hypofibrinogenemia and severe bleeding requiring transfusion. Guidelines recommend cryoprecipitate or fibrinogen concentrate (FC) for the treatment of acquired hypofibrinogenemia. This study compared cryoprecipitate and FC for the correction of acquired hypofibrinogenemia and the associated costs. DESIGN: A single-center, prospective, randomized study evaluating patients with hypofibrinogenemia after cardiac surgery. The primary endpoint was direct treatment cost. Secondary endpoints included the change in fibrinogen level after FC and/or cryoprecipitate dosing. SETTING: A single-center study in Astana, Kazakhstan. PARTICIPANTS: Participants who underwent CPB from 2021 to 2022 and developed clinically significant bleeding and hypofibrinogenemia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive cryoprecipitate or FC. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-eight adult patients with acquired hypofibrinogenemia (<2.0 g/L) after CPB were randomized to receive cryoprecipitate (N = 40) or FC (N = 48), with similar demographics between groups. Overall, mean ± SD 9.33 ± 0.94 units (range, 8-10) cryoprecipitate or 1.40 ± 0.49 g (1-2) FC was administered to the 2 groups. From before administration to 24 hours after, mean plasma fibrinogen increased by a mean ± SD of 125 ± 65 and 96 ± 65 mg/dL in the cryoprecipitate and FC groups, respectively. At 48 hours after administration, there was no significant difference in fibrinogen levels between groups. The mean direct cost of treatment with FC was significantly lower than with cryoprecipitate (p < 0.0001): $1,505.06 ± $152.40 and $631.75 ± $223.67 per patient for cryoprecipitate and FC, respectively. CONCLUSION: Analysis of plasma fibrinogen concentration showed that cryoprecipitate and FC had comparable effectiveness. However, FC is advantageous over cryoprecipitate due to its ease of handling, lower cost, and high purity.

Mortality predictors of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: Retrospective cohort study from Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan.

BACKGROUND: First reported case of Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Kazakhstan was identified in March 2020. Many specialized tertiary hospitals in Kazakhstan including National Research Cardiac Surgery Center (NRCSC) were re-organized to accept coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infected patients during summer months of 2020. Although many studies from worldwide reported their experience in treating patients with COVID-19, there are limited data available from the Central Asia countries. The aim of this study is to identify predictors of mortality associated with COVID-19 in NRCSC tertiary hospital in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the NRCSC between June 1st-August 31st 2020 with COVID-19. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected from electronic records. In-hospital mortality was assessed as an outcome. Patients were followed-up until in-hospital death or discharge from the hospital. Descriptive statistics and factors associated with mortality were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-nine admissions were recorded during the follow-up period. Mean age was 57 years and 61% were males. Median duration of stay at the hospital was 8 days and 34 (14%) patients died during the hospitalization. Non-survivors were more likely to be admitted later from the disease onset, with higher fever, lower oxygen saturation and increased respiratory rate compared to survivors. Leukocytosis, lymphopenia, anemia, elevated liver and kidney function tests, hypoproteinemia, elevated inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)) and coagulation tests (fibrinogen, D-dimer, international normalized ratio (INR), and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)) at admission were associated with mortality. Age (OR 1.2, CI:1.01-1.43), respiratory rate (OR 1.38, CI: 1.07-1.77), and CRP (OR 1.39, CI: 1.04-1.87) were determined to be independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: This study describes 14% mortality rate from COVID-19 in the tertiary hospital. Many abnormal clinical and laboratory variables at admission were associated with poor outcome. Age, respiratory rate and CRP were found to be independent predictors of mortality. Our finding would help healthcare providers to predict the risk factors associated with high risk of mortality. Further investigations involving large cohorts should be provided to support our findings.