Evidence for the utility of cfDNA plasma concentrations to predict disease severity in COVID-19: a retrospective pilot study.

Background: COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic caused by the highly infective SARS-CoV-2. There is a need for biomarkers not only for overall prognosis but also for predicting the response to treatments and thus for improvements in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19. Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has emerged as a promising biomarker in the assessment of various pathological conditions. The aim of this retrospective and observational pilot study was to investigate the range of cfDNA plasma concentrations in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection, to relate them to established inflammatory parameters as a correlative biomarker for disease severity, and to compare them with plasma levels in a healthy control group. Methods: Lithium-Heparin plasma samples were obtained from COVID-19 patients (n = 21) during hospitalization in the University Medical Centre of Mainz, Germany between March and June 2020, and the cfDNA concentrations were determined by quantitative PCR yielding amplicons of long interspersed nuclear elements (LINE-1). The cfDNA levels were compared with those of an uninfected control group (n = 19). Results: Plasma cfDNA levels in COVID-19 patients ranged from 247.5 to 6,346.25 ng/ml and the mean concentration was 1,831 ± 1,388 ng/ml (± standard deviation), which was significantly different from the levels of the uninfected control group (p < 0.001). Regarding clinical complications, the highest correlation was found between cfDNA levels and the myositis (p = 0.049). In addition, cfDNA levels correlated with the "WHO clinical progression scale". D-Dimer and C-reactive protein (CRP) were the clinical laboratory parameters with the highest correlations with cfDNA levels. Conclusion: The results of this observational pilot study show a wide range in cfDNA plasma concentrations in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of infection and confirm that cfDNA plasma concentrations serve as a predictive biomarker of disease severity in COVID-19.

The Optimal Fluid Strategy Matters in Liver Surgery: A Retrospective Single Centre Analysis of 666 Consecutive Liver Resections.

As optimal intraoperative fluid management in liver surgery has not been established, we retrospectively analyzed our fluid strategy in a high-volume liver surgery center in 666 liver resections. Intraoperative fluid management was divided into very restrictive (<10 m kg-1 h-1) and normal (≥10 mL kg-1 h-1) groups for study group characterization. The primary endpoint was morbidity as assessed by the Clavien-Dindo (CD) score and the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Logistic regression models identified factors most predictive of postoperative morbidity. No association was found between postoperative morbidity and fluid management in the overall study population (p = 0.89). However, the normal fluid management group had shorter postoperative hospital stays (p = <0.001), shorter ICU stays (p = 0.035), and lower in-hospital mortality (p = 0.02). Elevated lactate levels (p < 0.001), duration (p < 0.001), and extent of surgery (p < 0.001) were the most predictive factors for postoperative morbidity. In the subgroup of major/extreme liver resection, very low total (p = 0.028) and normalized fluid balance (p = 0.025) (NFB) were associated with morbidity. Moreover, fluid management was not associated with morbidity in patients with normal lactate levels (<2.5 mmol/L). In conclusion, fluid management in liver surgery is multifaceted and must be applied judiciously as a therapeutic measure. While a restrictive strategy appears attractive, hypovolemia should be avoided.

Influence of intraoperative fluid replacement on ampicillin serum levels and surgical site infections.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) occur despite antimicrobial prophylaxis and increase postoperative morbidity and mortality. This could be caused by an intraoperative decrease in antibiotic serum concentrations such as ampicillin after major abdominal surgery due to blood loss and fluid therapy, which possibly promotes SSI. This hypothesis was tested in the present study. METHODS: This pilot study was performed as a prospective observational trial between March 2018 and May 2019. Ampicillin/sulbactam was administered intravenously during anesthesia induction. Fluid replacement was guided based on hemodynamic variables, including analysis of pulse pressure variation. The primary outcome was ampicillin serum level (ASL), measured after administration and hourly within 4 hours. The incidence of SSI at hospital discharge was the secondary outcome. Linear mixed and logistic regression models were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: After screening of 133 adult patients, 129 were enrolled, and 102 completed the study protocol. No correlation was found between the volume of intraoperative fluids and ASL, nor was any association found between ASL and SSI. Based on 5 SSI cases, SSI were associated with higher intraoperative fluid volume. ASL was sufficient to provide intraoperative coverage for all potential bacterial strains. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative fluid replacement had no effect on ASL up to 4 hours after ampicillin/sulbactam administration. SSI were within an acceptable range, indicating adequate antimicrobial prophylaxis, so intraoperative control of ASL does not seem necessary. In conclusion, contrary to our initial hypothesis, ASL is not influenced by volume turnover or blood loss during major surgery and therefore does not affect SSI.