Comparison of Sedation and Analgesia Requirements in Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Versus Non-SARS-CoV-2 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Veno-Venous ECMO.

BACKGROUND: Increased analgosedation requirements have been described in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support due to unique pharmacokinetic challenges. There is a paucity of data comparing sedation requirements in patients on ECMO for ARDS secondary to SARS-CoV-2 versus other etiologies of respiratory failure. OBJECTIVE: To compare sedation and analgesia requirements in adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 versus non-SARS-CoV-2 ARDS requiring veno-venous (VV) ECMO support. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving sedation and analgesia on VV-ECMO support. Patients were excluded if cannulated at an outside hospital for greater than 24 hours, expired within 48 hours of ECMO cannulation, or received neuromuscular blocking agents for greater than 7 consecutive days following ECMO cannulation. RESULTS: We evaluated 108 patients on VV-ECMO support, including 44 with non-SARS-CoV-2 ARDS and 64 with SARS-CoV-2 ARDS. The median daily dexmedetomidine requirements were significantly higher in the SARS-CoV-2 cohort (16.7 vs 13.4 mcg/kg/day, P = 0.03), while the median propofol daily requirements were significantly higher in the non-SARS-CoV-2 cohort (40.3 vs 53.5 mg/kg/day, P < 0.01). There was no difference in daily requirements of opioids, benzodiazepines, and ketamine between groups. Use of adjunct agents to facilitate weaning was significantly higher in the SARS-CoV-2 cohort (78.1% vs 43.2%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Patients with ARDS on VV-ECMO support require multiple analgosedative agents with concomitant use of nonparenteral adjunct agents. Further studies are needed to evaluate optimal analgosedation strategies in patients on ECMO support.

Apixaban and rivaroxaban anti-Xa level utilization for guidance of administration of andexanet alfa: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Andexanet alfa, a modified recombinant factor Xa (FXa), was FDA approved in 2018 for anticoagulant reversal in patients with life-threatening bleeding associated with FXa inhibitors (FXaI). The ANNEXA-4 investigators administered andexanet alfa to patients within an 18-h from last dose of oral FXaI. In practice, time from last dose is often unknown. Previous studies have shown that clearance of these agents may be impaired by renal and hepatic dysfunction, as well as drug-drug interactions. Decision for use of andexanet alfa is also complicated by its high cost, limited drug availability, and thrombotic risk. This study aimed to describe the utility of anti-Xa DOAC levels as a decision point to administer andexanet alfa. METHODS: This is a case series of four patients with an anti-Xa DOAC level that received andexanet alfa for oral FXaI reversal in the setting of life-threatening bleeding or prior to procedure. RESULTS: Four patients were included in the study. Two patients had a known time since last dose of oral FXaI. All patients had a detectable anti-Xa DOAC levels prior to administration of andexanet alfa. Two patients had levels within the peak range, one patient had a level below the peak range, and one patient had a level above the peak range. Andexanet alfa was administered after anti-Xa DOAC level return in all patients. CONCLUSION: In our case series, obtaining anti-Xa DOAC levels prior to administration of andexanet alfa was achievable and facilitated use of reversal agents in patients with major bleeding or emergent procedural need.

A case series analysis of bicarbonate-based purge solution administration via Impella ventricular assist device.

PURPOSE: The Impella device historically required a heparin-based purge solution to reduce the risk of biomaterial deposition to maintain pump function. In April 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved utilization of bicarbonate-based purge solutions (BBPS) as an alternative to heparin for patients who are intolerant to heparin or in whom heparin is contraindicated. The purpose of this case series is to report patient outcomes of Impella support with BBPS use at our institution. SUMMARY: Eighteen patients who received BBPS via the Impella CP or Impella 5.5 device were included in our review. Patients were included if they had BBPS administration for greater than 24 hours. All patients were followed for 72 hours after cessation of BBPS. Indications for BBPS were coagulopathy (n = 5, 28%), suspected HIT (n = 2, 11%), confirmed HIT (n = 1, 6%), and major bleeding (n = 10, 56%). Three patients (17%) experienced an Impella complication while on BBPS. One patient required pump exchange, one required removal of the Impella device, and one received alteplase for suspected purge block. Of these, two patients experienced complications greater than 21 days into BBPS therapy. CONCLUSION: This case series adds to the literature describing clinical outcomes for patients on Impella support with BBPS. While BBPS offers a viable option for the management of patients on Impella devices who are unable to tolerate heparin-based purge solutions, further data is needed to determine the longevity of the Impella device with BBPS to minimize risk of Impella complications.

Bloodstream infections in prolonged use of axillary-placed, intra-aortic balloon-pump support: A single-center study.

Infections from prolonged use of axillary intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) have not been well studied. Bloodstream infection (BSI) occurred in 13% of our patients; however, no difference in outcome was noted between those with BSI and those without. Further studies regarding protocol developments that minimize BSI risk are needed.

Outcomes Associated With 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Administration to Reverse Oral Factor Xa Inhibitors in Bleeding Patients.

Compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), oral factor Xa inhibitors are associated with at least equivalent efficacy and a lower incidence of major bleeding. Despite this benefit, bleeding remains the most common adverse event. Prior to the approval of andexanet alfa, alternative agents such as 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) were utilized for reversal. This was a retrospective, descriptive study conducted on patients 18 years of age or older who received 4F-PCC for reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors-associated bleeding. Patients were excluded if they received a VKA or dabigatran in the previous 48 hours. A subgroup analysis comparing 4F-PCC with andexanet alfa was conducted on patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ANNEXA-4 trial. The primary end point of this study was to evaluate the incidence of hemostasis and associated dosing strategies in patients receiving 4F-PCC for reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors-associated bleeding. Thirty-eight patients were included, and 28 patients (74%) achieved hemostasis. The median dose of 4F-PCC was 50 units/kg. In patients who achieved hemostasis, the median dose was 50 units/kg, and in those who failed to reach hemostasis, a median dose of 30 units/kg was seen. Within the subgroup analysis, there was no difference in overall rates of hemostasis between the 4F-PCC and andexanet alfa groups. Remaining a reasonable option to utilize for reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors is 4F-PCC, especially when andexanet alfa is unavailable, with 50 units/kg appearing to be the most effective dose to achieve hemostasis. Further studies are needed to determine a preferential agent.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19: a review of current literature and guidelines.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections are associated with greater risk of both arterial and venous thromboembolic events.Pathophysiology and Clinical implications: This has been attributed to a florid proinflammatory state resulting in microvascular dysfunction, activation of platelets and procoagulant systems as well as possible direct endothelial injury. The associated morbidity and mortality of these events has prompted much speculation and varied anticoagulation and fibrinolytic strategies based on multiple criteria including disease severity and biomarkers. No clear definitive benefit has been established with these approaches, which have frequently led to greater bleeding complications without significant mortality benefit.Overview: In this review, we outline the burden of these thromboembolic events in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) as well as the hypothesized contributory biological mechanisms. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the major clinical studies on the topic, and end with a summary of major societal guideline recommendations on anticoagulation in COVID-19.