No abstract

Background: The relationship between ethnicity and COVID-19 is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to assess whether ethnicity has been reported in patients with COVID-19 and its relation to clinical outcomes. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PROSPERO for English-language citations on ethnicity and COVID-19 (1 st December 2019-15 th May 2020). We also reviewed: COVID-19 articles in NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, clinical trial protocols, grey literature, surveillance data and preprint articles on COVID-19 in MedRxiv to evaluate if the association between ethnicity and clinical outcomes were reported and what they showed. PROSPERO:180654. Findings: Of 207 articles in the database search, five reported ethnicity; two reported no association between ethnicity and mortality. Of 690 articles identified from medical journals, 12 reported ethnicity; three reported no association between ethnicity and mortality. Of 209 preprints, 34 reported ethnicity À 13 found Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals had an increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and 12 reported worse clinical outcomes, including ITU admission and mortality, in BAME patients compared to White patients. Of 12 grey literature reports, seven with original data reported poorer clinical outcomes in BAME groups compared to White groups. Interpretation: Data on ethnicity in patients with COVID-19 in the published medical literature remains limited. However, emerging data from the grey literature and preprint articles suggest BAME individuals are at an increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to White individuals and also worse clinical outcomes from COVID-19. Further work on the role of ethnicity in the current pandemic is of urgent public health importance.

Ethnicity is a complex entity composed of genetic make-up, social constructs, cultural identity, and behavioural patterns. 2 Ethnic classification systems have limitations but have been used to explore genetic and other population differences. Individuals from different ethnic backgrounds vary in behaviours, comorbidities, immune profiles, and risk of infection, as exemplified by the increased morbidity and mortality in black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in previous pandemics. 3 As COVID-19 spreads to areas with large cosmopolitan populations, understanding how ethnicity affects COVID-19 outcomes is essential. We therefore reviewed published papers and national surveillance reports on notifications and outcomes of COVID-19 to ascertain ethnicity data reporting patterns, associations, and outcomes.Only two (7%) of 29 publications reported ethnicity disaggregated data (both were case series without outcomes specific to ethnicity). We found that none of the ten highest COVID-19 case-notifying countries reported data related to ethnicity; UK mortality reporting, for example, does not require information on ethnicity. This omission seems stark given the disproportionate number of deaths

Inotropes and vasopressors are biologically and clinically important compounds that originate from different pharmacological groups and act at some of the most fundamental receptor and signal transduction systems in the body. More than 20 such agents are in common clinical use, yet few reviews of their pharmacology exist outside of physiology and pharmacology textbooks. Despite widespread use in critically ill patients, understanding of the clinical effects of these drugs in pathological states is poor. The purpose of this article is to describe the pharmacology and clinical applications of inotropic and vasopressor agents in critically ill patients. LINKED ARTICLESThis article is commented on by Bracht et al., pp. 2009 and De Backer and Scolletta, pp. 2012-2014 ]i, Intracellular calcium concentration; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; cAMP, cyclic adenosine monophosphate; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; DO2, systemic oxygen delivery; GPCR, G-protein coupled receptor; GTP/GDP, guanosine triphosphate/diphosphate; PKA/PKC, protein kinase A/C; PLC, phospholipase C; SvO2, mixed/central venous oxygen saturation; TNF-a, tumour necrosis factor alpha; VO2, oxygen consumption IntroductionInotropes are agents administered to increase myocardial contractility whereas vasopressor agents are administered to increase vascular tone. The use of these potent agents is largely confined to critically ill patients with profound haemodynamic impairment such that tissue blood flow is not sufficient to meet metabolic requirements. Examples include patients with severe heart failure and septic or cardiogenic shock, as well as patients undergoing major surgery and victims of major trauma. They are generally administered via a large central vein and, in some specific situations, via a peripheral vein. These agents have a diverse range of actions including metabolic and immune effects, many of which are poorly understood. The objective of this review is to describe the underlying cardiovascular mechanisms that clinicians seek to influence through the use of inotropic agents, to describe the basic pharmacology of those drugs in common use and, finally, to explore the evidence base for specific approaches to inotrope and vasopressor therapy in clinical practice. As many of the commonly used agents exert both inotropic and vasopressor effects, the term 'inotrope' will be generally used in this review to describe agents with a spectrum of actions. The physiological basis for the actions of inotropic agentsMyocyte excitation and contraction. Cardiac muscle fibres contract through the sliding filament mechanism. Actin and myosin filaments are propelled past each other through repeated cross-bridge linking and unlinking. Each cardiac action potential results in the opening of voltage-gated myocyte calcium channels and a rise in intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca 2+ ]i). This triggers a further release of calcium from the sarcoplasmic reticulum, which accounts for around three quarters of the total increase in [Ca 2+ ]i (Levick, 2003...

Background: The role of tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear, with several consensus guidelines advising against this practice. We developed both a dedicated airway team and coordinated education programme to facilitate ward management of tracheostomised COVID-19 patients. Here, we report outcomes in the first 100 COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy at our institution. Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients confirmed to have COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. The primary outcome measure was 30-day survival, accounting for severe organ dysfunction (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health [APACHE]-II score>17). Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation, ICU stay, and healthcare workers directly involved in tracheostomy care acquiring COVID-19. Results: A total of 164 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU between March 9, 2020 and April 21, 2020. A total of 100 patients (mean [standard deviation] age: 55 [12] yr; 29% female) underwent tracheostomy; 64 (age: 57 [14] yr; 25% female) did not undergo tracheostomy. Despite similar APACHE-II scores, 30-day survival was higher in 85/100 (85%) patients after tracheostomy, compared with 27/64 (42%) non-tracheostomised patients {relative risk: 3.9 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.3e6.4); P<0.0001}. In patients with APACHE-II scores !17, 68/100 (68%) tracheotomised patients survived, compared with 12/64 (19%) non-tracheotomised patients (P<0.001). Tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation was associated with shorter duration of ventilation (mean difference: 6.0 days [95% CI: 3.1e9.0]; P<0.0001) and ICU stay (mean difference: 6.7 days [95% CI: 3.7e9.6]; P<0.0001). No healthcare workers developed COVID-19. Conclusion: Independent of the severity of critical illness from COVID-19, 30-day survival was higher and ICU stay shorter in patients receiving tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy appears to be safe in COVID-19.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract

Background Retransplantation candidates are disadvantaged owing to lack of good-quality liver grafts. Strategies that can facilitate transplantation of suboptimal grafts into retransplant candidates require investigation. The aim was to determine whether late liver retransplantation can be performed safely with suboptimal grafts, following normothermic machine perfusion. Methods A prospectively enrolled group of patients who required liver retransplantation received a suboptimal graft preserved via normothermic machine perfusion. This group was compared with both historical and contemporaneous cohorts of patient who received grafts preserved by cold storage. The primary outcome was 6-month graft and patient survival. Results The normothermic machine perfusion group comprised 26 patients. The historical (cold storage 1) and contemporaneous (cold storage 2) groups comprised 31 and 25 patients respectively. The 6-month graft survival rate did not differ between groups (cold storage 1, 27 of 31, cold storage 2, 22 of 25; normothermic machine perfusion, 22 of 26; P = 0.934). This was despite the normothermic machine perfusion group having significantly more steatotic grafts (8 of 31, 7 of 25, and 14 of 26 respectively; P = 0.006) and grafts previously declined by at least one other transplant centre (5 of 31, 9 of 25, and 21 of 26; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion In liver retransplantation, normothermic machine perfusion can safely expand graft options without compromising short-term outcomes.