No abstract

Immunocompromised individuals were not included in formal trials of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. Subsequent studies in patients with haematological malignancies and solid organ transplant recipients suggest inferior responses to vaccination. We determined antibody responses to a single dose of vaccines in one of the most vulnerable patient groups, allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients. Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were administered at least 3 months post-transplant to 55 adult allo-HCT recipients. We found that older age and concurrent use of immunosuppressive medications were significantly associated with lack of antibody response to vaccination. Only 21% of those on systemic immunosuppression mounted a response, compared to 58% of patients who were not taking immunosuppression (p=0.006). We also show that responses to the AstraZeneca vaccine may be superior to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in this cohort. These findings highlight the need for novel immunogenic vaccine formulations and schedules in these highest risk patients as well as continued public healthy safety measures to protect the most vulnerable members of our society.

BackgroundThe introduction of central venous catheters has advanced medical care, particularly in hemato-oncology. However these can be associated with an increased thrombotic risk. Previous studies have compared the rate of thrombotic events between peripherally- inserted (PICCs) and long term skin tunneled catheters (LTSTCs) noting fewer complications associated with the latter, though this has rarely translated into clinical practice. The objectives of our study was to compare the cumulative incidence of thrombotic events between peripherally-inserted and long term skin tunneled venous catheters.Patients/methodsWe performed a retrospective, single center cohort analysis of patients with hematological malignancies who had either a PICC or LTSTC line inserted between January 2010 through January 2013. Cumulative incidences of thrombotic events were compared between the two groups, and post-thrombotic complications were also examined.Results346 patients had a PICC inserted with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 5.8%, while 237 patients had a LTSTC inserted with a cumulative incidence of 1.7% (p = 0.003). Post-thrombotic complication rates, particularly infection, were higher in the PICC group compared to the LTSTC group (p = 0.597).ConclusionsOur study showed that the incidence of thrombotic events in hemato-oncology patients was significantly lower in those who had a LTSTC compared to PICC line. As the use of central venous lines increases in hemato-oncology patient care, a randomized trial comparing PICCs and LTSTCs is necessary to address which venous access is most appropriate in this cohort of patients, with minimal risk of morbidity and mortality.

Background The optimal analgesia method in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) remains controversial. Intercostal nerve blockade (ICNB) is limited by its duration of action. The erector spinae plane (ESP) block has the potential to provide satisfactory analgesia for VATS; however, the effectiveness of continuous ESP versus surgeon-performed ICNB has not been investigated. The objectives of this study were to establish feasibility of patient recruitment and follow-up before undertaking a fully powered randomized controlled trial (RCT); and, secondarily, to compare opioid usage, pain control, and sensory blockade. Methods This feasibility RCT was undertaken at St Joseph’s Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and included 24 patients (>18 years) having elective VATS with at least one overnight stay. Exclusion criteria were patient refusal, body mass index >40 kg/m2, contraindications to neuraxial analgesia techniques as per the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain guidelines, known allergy to local anesthetics, language or comprehension barriers, procedures with a higher chance of open surgery, and regular opioid use for ≥3 months preoperatively. Patients underwent either continuous ESP (n=12) or surgeon-performed ICNB (n=12). All patients received routine intraoperative anesthesia care and multimodal analgesia. Feasibility criteria were recruitment rate of two patients/week and full follow-up in all patients in-hospital. We compared opioid consumption, postoperative pain scores (0–10 numerical rating scale), adverse events, patient satisfaction, and distribution of sensory blockade as clinical outcomes (secondary). Results Feasibility of primary outcomes was successfully demonstrated. Five patients had an epidural in anticipation of open surgery. Mean opioid consumption as equivalent morphine units was less in the ESP group over the first 24 h (mean difference, 1.63 [95% CI –1.20 to 4.45]) and 48 h (mean difference, 2.34 [95% CI –1.93 to 6.61]). There were no differences in adverse effects. Conclusions A fully powered RCT is feasible with modifications. Our results also suggest that continuous ESP is safe and can decrease opioid needs. However, it is important to consider procedures to improve compliance to protocol and adherence to assigned interventions. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03176667. Registered June 5, 2017.