Effects of inhaled nitric oxide in COVID-19-induced ARDS - Is it worthwhile?

BACKGROUND: Changes in pulmonary hemodynamics and ventilation/perfusion were proposed as hallmarks of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) may overcome these issues and improve arterial oxygenation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed arterial oxygenation and pulmonary vasoreactivity in seven COVID-19 ARDS patients receiving 20 ppm iNO for 15-30 minutes. RESULTS: The inhalation of NO significantly improved oxygenation. All patients with severe ARDS had higher partial pressures of oxygen and reduced pulmonary vascular resistance. Significant changes in pulmonary shunting were not observed. CONCLUSION: Overall, iNO could provide immediate help and delay respiratory deterioration in COVID-19-induced moderate to severe ARDS.

[Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) : Retrospective analysis of a load and go strategy under the aspect of golden hour of eCPR]. / Extrakorporale kardiopulmonale Reanimation (eCPR) bei prähospitalem Herz-Kreislauf-Stillstand (OHCA) : Retrospektive Analyse einer "Load-and-go"-Strategie unter dem Aspekt "golden hour of eCPR".

BACKGROUND: Survival rates after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remain low. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) has been introduced as an attempt to increase survival in selected patients and observational studies have shown promising results. Nevertheless, inclusion criteria and timing of eCPR remain undefined. OBJECTIVE: The current study analyzed a load and go strategy with respect to the golden hour of eCPR as a cut-off time for survival and favorable neurological outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 32 patients who underwent eCPR treatment due to an OHCA between January 2017 and September 2019. Routinely taken patient demographic data (age, BMI, sex) were analyzed. The main focus was set on processing times in the preclinical and clinical setting. Time intervals including OHCA until ambulance arrival, time on scene, transportation times and door to eCPR were extracted from emergency medical service (EMS) and resuscitation protocols. Low-flow times, survival and neurological outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: The use of eCPR in OHCA was associated with survival to hospital discharge in 28% and a good neurological outcome in 19% of the cases. Both groups (survivor and nonsurvivor) did not differ in patient demographics except for age. Survivors were significantly younger (47 (30-60) vs. 59 (50-68) years, p = 0.035). Processing times as well as low-flow times were not significantly different (OHCA-eCPR survivor 64 (50-87) vs. non-survivor 74 (51-85) min; p-value 0.64); however, median low-flow times were outside the golden hour of eCPR (69 (52-86)). CONCLUSION: Despite low-flow times of more than 60 min, eCPR was associated with survival in 28% after OHCA. Hence, exceeding the golden hour of eCPR cannot act as a definitive exclusion criterion for eCPR.