Purpose Severely ill patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop circulatory failure. We aimed to report patterns of left and right ventricular dysfunction in the first echocardiography following admission to intensive care unit (ICU). Methods Retrospective, descriptive study that collected echocardiographic and clinical information from severely ill COVID-19 patients admitted to 14 ICUs in 8 countries. Patients admitted to ICU who received at least one echocardiography between 1st February 2020 and 30th June 2021 were included. Clinical and echocardiographic data were uploaded using a secured web-based electronic database (REDCap). Results Six hundred and seventy-seven patients were included and the first echo was performed 2 [1, 4] days after ICU admission. The median age was 65 [56, 73] years, and 71% were male. Left ventricle (LV) and/or right ventricle (RV) systolic dysfunction were found in 234 (34.5%) patients. 149 (22%) patients had LV systolic dysfunction (with or without RV dysfunction) without LV dilatation and no elevation in filling pressure. 152 (22.5%) had RV systolic dysfunction. In 517 patients with information on both paradoxical septal motion and quantitative RV size, 90 (17.4%) had acute cor pulmonale (ACP). ACP was associated with mechanical ventilation (OR > 4), pulmonary embolism (OR > 5) and increased PaCO 2 . Exploratory analyses showed that patients with ACP and older age were more likely to die in hospital (including ICU). Conclusion Almost one-third of this cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients exhibited abnormal LV and/or RV systolic function in their first echocardiography assessment. While LV systolic dysfunction appears similar to septic cardiomyopathy, RV systolic dysfunction was related to pressure overload due to positive pressure ventilation, hypercapnia and pulmonary embolism. ACP and age seemed to be associated with mortality in this cohort. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06685-2.

Background: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Methods: We randomly assigned patients undergoing major general surgery to early warning system (EWS) and hemodynamic algorithm (intervention group, n = 20) or standard care (n = 20). The primary outcome was the difference in hypotension (defined as mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg) and as secondary outcome surrogate markers of organ injury and oxidative stress. Results: The median number of hypotensive episodes was lower in the intervention group (−5.0 (95% CI: −9.0, −0.5); p < 0.001), with lower time spent in hypotension (−12.8 min (95% CI: −38.0, −2.3 min); p = 0.048), correspondent to −4.8% of total surgery time (95% CI: −12.7, 0.01%; p = 0.048).The median time-weighted average of hypotension was 0.12 mmHg (0.35) in the intervention group and 0.37 mmHg (1.11) in the control group, with a median difference of −0.25 mmHg (95% CI: −0.85, −0.01; p = 0.025). Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL) correlated with time-weighted average of hypotension (R = 0.32; p = 0.038) and S100B with number of hypotensive episodes, absolute time of hypotension, relative time of hypotension and time-weighted average of hypotension (p < 0.001 for all). The intervention group showed lower Neuronal Specific Enolase (NSE) and higher reduced glutathione when compared to the control group. Conclusions: The use of an EWS coupled with a hemodynamic algorithm resulted in reduced intraoperative hypotension, reduced NSE and oxidative stress.

No abstract

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.