Double-blind randomized proof-of-concept trial of canakinumab in patients with COVID-19 associated cardiac injury and heightened inflammation

AIMS: In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), myocardial injury is associated with systemic inflammation and higher mortality. Our aim was to perform a proof of concept trial with canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody to interleukin-1β, in patients with COVID-19, myocardial injury, and heightened inflammation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This trial required hospitalization due to COVID-19, elevated troponin, and a C-reactive protein concentration more than 50 mg/L. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement at Day 14, defined as either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital. The secondary endpoint was mortality at Day 28. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab 600 mg ( CONCLUSION: There was no difference in time to clinical improvement at Day 14 in patients treated with canakinumab, and no safety concerns were identified. Future studies could focus on high dose canakinumab in the treatment arm and assess efficacy outcomes at Day 28

Best Practices for Point of Care Ultrasound: An Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus

Despite the growing use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in contemporary medical practice and the existence of clinical guidelines addressing its specific applications, there remains a lack of standardization and agreement on optimal practices for several areas of POCUS use. The Society of Point of Care Ultrasound (SPOCUS) formed a working group in 2022 to establish a set of recommended best practices for POCUS, applicable to clinicians regardless of their training, specialty, resource setting, or scope of practice. Using a three-round modified Delphi process, a multi-disciplinary panel of 22 POCUS experts based in the United States reached consensus on 57 statements in domains including: (1) The definition and clinical role of POCUS; (2) Training pathways; (3) Credentialing; (4) Cleaning and maintenance of POCUS devices; (5) Consent and education; (6) Security, storage, and sharing of POCUS studies; (7) Uploading, archiving, and reviewing POCUS studies; and (8) Documenting POCUS studies. The consensus statements are provided here. While not intended to establish a standard of care or supersede more targeted guidelines, this document may serve as a useful baseline to guide clinicians, leaders, and systems considering initiation or enhancement of POCUS programs

Mechanisms of acute right ventricular injury in cardiothoracic surgical and critical care settings: part 2

No abstract available

Early Serial Echocardiographic and Ultrasonographic Findings in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac function of critically ill patients with COVID-19 generally has been reported from clinically obtained data. Echocardiographic deformation imaging can identify ventricular dysfunction missed by traditional echocardiographic assessment. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the prevalence of ventricular dysfunction and what are its implications for the natural history of critical COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19. We performed serial echocardiography and lower extremity vascular ultrasound on hospitalization days 1, 3, and 8. We defined left ventricular (LV) dysfunction as the absolute value of longitudinal strain of < 17% or left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of < 50%. Primary clinical outcome was inpatient survival. RESULTS: We enrolled 110 patients. Thirty-nine (35.5%) died before hospital discharge. LV dysfunction was present at admission in 38 patients (34.5%) and in 21 patients (36.2%) on day 8 (P = .59). Median baseline LVEF was 62% (interquartile range [IQR], 52%-69%), whereas median absolute value of baseline LV strain was 16% (IQR, 14%-19%). Survivors and nonsurvivors did not differ statistically significantly with respect to day 1 LV strain (17.9% vs 14.4%; P = .12) or day 1 LVEF (60.5% vs 65%; P = .06). Nonsurvivors showed worse day 1 right ventricle (RV) strain than survivors (16.3% vs 21.2%; P = .04). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with critical COVID-19, LV and RV dysfunction is common, frequently identified only through deformation imaging, and early (day 1) RV dysfunction may be associated with clinical outcome

The Discover In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (Discover IHCA) Study: An Investigation of Hospital Practices After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

IMPORTANCE: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a significant public health burden. Rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) have been improving, but the best way to care for patients after the initial resuscitation remains poorly understood, and improvements in survival to discharge are stagnant. Existing North American cardiac arrest databases lack comprehensive data on the post-resuscitation period, and we do not know current post-IHCA practice patterns. To address this gap, we developed the Discover In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (Discover IHCA) study, which will thoroughly evaluate current post-IHCA care practices across a diverse cohort. OBJECTIVES: Our study collects granular data on post-IHCA treatment practices, focusing on temperature control and prognostication, with the objective of describing variation in current post-IHCA practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a multicenter, prospectively collected, observational cohort study of patients who have suffered IHCA and have been successfully resuscitated (achieved ROSC). There are 24 enrolling hospital systems (23 in the United States) with 69 individual enrolling hospitals (39 in the United States). We developed a standardized data dictionary, and data collection began in October 2023, with a projected 1000 total enrollments. Discover IHCA is endorsed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. INTERVENTIONS, OUTCOMES, AND ANALYSIS: The study collects data on patient characteristics including pre-arrest frailty, arrest characteristics, and detailed information on post-arrest practices and outcomes. Data collection on post-IHCA practice was structured around current American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council guidelines. Among other data elements, the study captures post-arrest temperature control interventions and post-arrest prognostication methods. Analysis will evaluate variations in practice and their association with mortality and neurologic function. CONCLUSIONS: We expect this study, Discover IHCA, to identify variability in practice and outcomes following IHCA, and be a vital resource for future investigations into best-practice for managing patients after IHCA

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health

The Discover In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (Discover IHCA) Study: An Investigation of Hospital Practices After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

IMPORTANCE: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a significant public health burden. Rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) have been improving, but the best way to care for patients after the initial resuscitation remains poorly understood, and improvements in survival to discharge are stagnant. Existing North American cardiac arrest databases lack comprehensive data on the post-resuscitation period, and we do not know current post-IHCA practice patterns. To address this gap, we developed the Discover In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (Discover IHCA) study, which will thoroughly evaluate current post-IHCA care practices across a diverse cohort. OBJECTIVES: Our study collects granular data on post-IHCA treatment practices, focusing on temperature control and prognostication, with the objective of describing variation in current post-IHCA practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a multicenter, prospectively collected, observational cohort study of patients who have suffered IHCA and have been successfully resuscitated (achieved ROSC). There are 24 enrolling hospital systems (23 in the United States) with 69 individual enrolling hospitals (39 in the United States). We developed a standardized data dictionary, and data collection began in October 2023, with a projected 1000 total enrollments. Discover IHCA is endorsed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. INTERVENTIONS, OUTCOMES, AND ANALYSIS: The study collects data on patient characteristics including pre-arrest frailty, arrest characteristics, and detailed information on post-arrest practices and outcomes. Data collection on post-IHCA practice was structured around current American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council guidelines. Among other data elements, the study captures post-arrest temperature control interventions and post-arrest prognostication methods. Analysis will evaluate variations in practice and their association with mortality and neurologic function. CONCLUSIONS: We expect this study, Discover IHCA, to identify variability in practice and outcomes following IHCA, and be a vital resource for future investigations into best-practice for managing patients after IHCA

Intravenous Aviptadil and Remdesivir for Treatment of COVID-19-Associated Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure in the USA (Tesico): A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health

Right Ventricle Injury in respiratory failure patients receiving Veno-venous extracorporeal life support

Hypothesis: There is currently no agreed-upon definition for RVI in patients undergoing ECMO support for respiratory failure. This has also led to limited data on interventions that can be beneficial in patients with RVI during ECMO support. Aim of the scoping review The aim of the scoping review is to systematically assess the quality and quantity of evidence pertaining: Definitions of RV injury during ECMO support for Resp. failure and severity assessment (of any etiology) RV-targeted interventions in patients with RVI during ECMO support