Hemoperfusion and blood purification strategies in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review
Artificial organs. 2021
BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe cases requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Together with supportive therapies (ventilation in particular), the suppression of the pro-inflammatory state has been a hypothesized target. Pharmacological therapies with corticosteroids and interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists have reduced mortality. The use of extracorporeal cytokine removal, also known as hemoperfusion (HP), could be a promising non-pharmacological approach to decrease the pro-inflammatory state in COVID-19. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE databases in order to summarize the evidence regarding HP therapy in COVID-19. We included original studies and case series enrolling at least five patients. RESULTS We included 11 articles and describe the characteristics of the populations studied from both clinical and biological perspectives. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low. Only two studies had a control group, one of which included 101 patients in total. The remaining studies had a range between 10 and 50 patients included. There was large variability in the HP techniques implemented and in clinical and biological outcomes reported. Most studies described decreasing levels of IL-6 after HP treatment. CONCLUSION Our review does not support strong conclusions regarding the role of HP in COVID-19. Considering the very low level of clinical evidence detected, starting HP therapies in COVID-19 patients does not seem supported outside of clinical trials. Prospective randomized data are needed.
Thromboelastography-based anticoagulation management during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a safety and feasibility pilot study
Annals of Intensive Care. 2018;8((1)):7.
BACKGROUND There is no consensus on the management of anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). ECMO is currently burdened by a high rate of hemostatic complications, possibly associated with inadequate monitoring of heparin anticoagulation. This study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of an anticoagulation protocol for patients undergoing ECMO based on thromboelastography (TEG) as opposed to an activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)-based protocol. METHODS We performed a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in two academic tertiary care centers. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure treated with veno-venous ECMO were randomized to manage heparin anticoagulation using a TEG-based protocol (target 16-24 min of the R parameter, TEG group) or a standard of care aPTT-based protocol (target 1.5-2 of aPTT ratio, aPTT group). Primary outcomes were safety and feasibility of the study protocol. RESULTS Forty-two patients were enrolled: 21 were randomized to the TEG group and 21 to the aPTT group. Duration of ECMO was similar in the two groups (9 (7-16) days in the TEG group and 11 (4-17) days in the aPTT group, p = 0.74). Heparin dosing was lower in the TEG group compared to the aPTT group (11.7 (9.5-15.3) IU/kg/h vs. 15.7 (10.9-21.3) IU/kg/h, respectively, p = 0.03). Safety parameters, assessed as number of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events and transfusions given, were not different between the two study groups. As for the feasibility, the TEG-based protocol triggered heparin infusion rate adjustments more frequently (p < 0.01) and results were less frequently in the target range compared to the aPTT-based protocol (p < 0.001). Number of prescribed TEG or aPTT controls (according to study groups) and protocol violations were not different between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS TEG seems to be safely used to guide anticoagulation management during ECMO. Its use was associated with the administration of lower heparin doses compared to a standard of care aPTT-based protocol. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, October 22,2014. Identifier: NCT02271126.