Evaluation of functional warm ischemia time during controlled donation after circulatory determination of death using normothermic regional perfusion (ECMO-TT): A prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCD) seems an effective way to mitigate the critical shortage of available organs for transplant worldwide. As a recently developed procedure for organ retrieval, some questions remain unsolved such as the uncertainty regarding the effect of functional warm ischemia time (FWIT) on organs´ viability. METHODS: We developed a multicenter prospective cohort study collecting all data from evaluated organs during cDCD from 2017 to 2020. All the procedures related to cDCD were performed with normothermic regional perfusion. The analysis included organ retrieval as endpoint and FWIT as exposure of interest. The effect of FWIT on the likelihood for organ retrieval was evaluated with Relative distribution analysis. RESULTS: A total amount of 507 organs´ related information was analyzed from 95 organ donors. Median donor age was 62 years, and 63% of donors were male. Stroke was the most common diagnosis before withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (61%), followed by anoxic encephalopathy (21%). This analysis showed that length of FWIT was inversely associated with organ retrieval rates for liver, kidneys, and pancreas. No statistically significant association was found for lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed an inverse association between functional warm ischemia time (FWIT) and retrieval rate. We also have postulated optimal FWIT's thresholds for organ retrieval. FWIT for liver retrieval remained between 6 and less than 11 min and in case of kidneys and pancreas, the optimal FWIT for retrieval was 6 to 12 min. These results could be valuable to improve organ utilization and for future analysis.

Are all ventilators for NIV performing the same? A bench analysis.

Global pandemic due to COVID-19 has increased the interest for ventilators´ use worldwide. New devices have been developed and older ones have undergone a renewed interest, but we lack robust evidence about performance of each ventilator to match appropriate device to a given patient and care environment. The aim of this bench study was to investigate the performance of six devices for noninvasive ventilation, and to compare them in terms of volume delivered, trigger response, pressurization capacity and synchronization in volume assisted controlled and pressure support ventilation. All ventilators were tested under thirty-six experimental conditions by using the lung model ASL5000® (IngMar Medical, Pittsburgh, PA). Two leak levels, two muscle inspiratory efforts and three mechanical patterns were combined for simulation. Trigger function was assessed by measurement of trigger-delay time. Pressurization capacity was evaluated as area under the pressure-time curve over the first 500 ms after inspiratory effort onset. Synchronization was evaluated by the asynchrony index and by incidence and type of asynchronies in each condition. All ventilators showed a good performance, even if pressurization capacity was worse than expected. Leak level did not affect their function. Differences were found during low muscle effort and obstructive pattern. In general, Philips Trilogy Evo/EV300 and Hamilton C3 showed the best results. NIV devices successfully compensate air leaks but still underperform with low muscle effort and obstructive lungs. Clinicians´ must have a clear understanding of the goals of NIV both for devices´ choice and set main parameters to achieve therapy success.

Sedation with Sevoflurane versus Propofol in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) led to intensive care units (ICUs) collapse. Amalgams of sedative agents (including volatile anesthetics) were used due to the clinical shortage of intravenous drugs (mainly propofol and midazolam). METHODS: A multicenter, randomized 1:1, controlled clinical trial was designed to compare sedation using propofol and sevoflurane in patients with ARDS associated with COVID-19 infection in terms of oxygenation and mortality. RESULTS: Data from a total of 17 patients (10 in the propofol arm and 7 in the sevoflurane arm) showed a trend toward PaO2/FiO2 improvement and the sevoflurane arm's superiority in decreasing the likelihood of death (no statistical significance was found). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous agents are the most-used sedative agents in Spain, even though volatile anesthetics, such as sevoflurane and isoflurane, have shown beneficial effects in many clinical conditions. Growing evidence demonstrates the safety and potential benefits of using volatile anesthetics in critical situations.