European Society of Anaesthesiology.

First isolated in China in early 2020, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the novel coronavirus responsible for the ongoing pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The disease has been spreading rapidly across the globe, with the largest burden falling on China, Europe, and the United States. COVID-19 is a new clinical syndrome, characterized by respiratory symptoms with varying degrees of severity, from mild upper respiratory illness to severe interstitial pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, aggravated by thrombosis in the pulmonary microcirculation. Three main phases of disease progression have been proposed for COVID-19: an early infection phase, a pulmonary phase, and a hyperinflammation phase. Although current understanding of COVID-19 treatment is mainly derived from small uncontrolled trials that are affected by a number of biases, strong background noise, and a litany of confounding factors, emerging awareness suggests that drugs currently used to treat COVID-19 (antiviral drugs, antimalarial drugs, immunomodulators, anticoagulants, and antibodies) should be evaluated in relation to the pathophysiology of disease progression. Drawing upon the dramatic experiences taking place in Italy and around the world, here we review the changes in the evolution of the disease and focus on current treatment uncertainties and promising new therapies.

A significant number of surgical patients are at risk of intra- or post-operative complications or both, which are associated with increased lengths of stay, costs, and mortality. Reducing these risks is important for the individual patient but also for health-care planners and managers. Insufficient tissue perfusion and cellular oxygenation due to hypovolemia, heart dysfunction or both is one of the leading causes of perioperative complications. Adequate perioperative management guided by effective and timely hemodynamic monitoring can help reduce the risk of complications and thus potentially improve outcomes. In this review, we describe the various available hemodynamic monitoring systems and how they can best be used to guide cardiovascular and fluid management in the perioperative period in high-risk surgical patients.

AimsWe present 5-year echocardiographic results of combined undersizing mitral ring annuloplasty (UMRA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in chronic ischaemic mitral regurgitation (CIMR). Methods and resultsTwo hundred and fifty-one patients (aged 68.4 + 8.1, 62.5% male) undergoing combined CABG and UMRA in our Institution (Cardiac Surgery, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy) between September 2001 and March 2007 were prospectively enrolled in the study. Median follow up was 32.9 months [interquartile range (IQR) 17.5-51.6]. Fourteen patients with significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) needing immediate intraoperative revision (n ¼ 3) or at discharge (n ¼ 11) were excluded from the study. Serial echocardiograms were performed in 220 survivors at baseline, discharge, and annually thereafter. Additionally, 17 patients died (2 early and 15 late deaths) and were also excluded from the study. MR remained stable at 1 year and re-increased at 3 years (P , 0.001) and 5 years (P , 0.001). Fiveyear actuarial survival was 83.2 + 4.4. Five-year freedom from re-operation for failed repair was 78.2 + 4.9%. Mean systolic and diastolic diameters decreased significantly at discharge (P ¼ 0.001 and P ¼ 0.01, respectively) and at early follow up (P ¼ 0.004 and P ¼ 0.02) but raised at 3 years (P , 0.001) and 5 years (P , 0.001). Systolic and diastolic sphericity indexes improved at discharge (P , 0.001) remained stable at 1 year but they re-increased at 3-year control (P ¼ 0.006 and P ¼ 0.03, respectively) with a late raise exceeding the pre-operative value (P , 0.001). Left ventricular reverse remodelling was observed in 44.2% of the study population with 10.3% of patients showing further left ventricular dilatation. At multivariable model, end-systolic volume 145 mL, systolic sphericity index 0.7, myocardial performance index 0.9, and wall motion score index 1.5 were predictors of recurrent MR. ConclusionOur findings emphasize the need for improved repair technique and better patient selection to identify patients with anticipated repair failure who could benefit more from valve replacement or other procedure directly addressing ventricular tethering.--

Background: Technical factors at the moment of catheter insertion might have a role in peripherally inserted central catheter–related thrombotic risk. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define the actual rate of peripherally inserted central catheter–related symptomatic deep vein thrombosis in patients in whom catheter insertion was performed according to ultrasound guidance, appropriate catheter size choice, and proper verification of tip location. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Only prospective observational studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010 up to November 2018 reporting peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate were included. All studies were of adult patients who underwent peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Results were restricted to those studies which included in their methods ultrasound guidance for venipuncture, catheter tip location, and a catheter size selection strategy. Random-effect meta-analyses and arcsine transformation for binomial data were performed to pool deep vein thrombosis weighted frequencies. Results: Of the 1441 studies identified, 15 studies involving 5420 patients and 5914 peripherally inserted central catheters fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The weighted frequency of peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis was 2.4% (95% confidence interval = 1.5–3.3) and remained low in oncologic patients (2.2%, 95% confidence interval = 0.6–3.9). Thrombotic rate was higher in onco-hematologic patients (5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 1.2–10). Considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74.9) was observed and all studies were considered at high risk of attrition bias. Conclusions: A proper technique is crucial at the moment of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. Peripherally inserted central catheter–related deep vein thrombosis rate appears to be low when evidence-based technical factors are taken into consideration during the insertion procedure.

IntroductionCritically ill patients and patients undergoing high-risk and major surgery, are instrumented with intra-arterial catheters and invasive blood pressure is considered the “gold standard” for arterial pressure monitoring. Nonetheless, artifacts due to inappropriate dynamic response of the fluid-filled monitoring systems may lead to clinically relevant differences between actual and displayed pressure values. We sought to analyze the incidence and causes of resonance/underdamping phenomena in patients undergoing major vascular and cardiac surgery.MethodsArterial pressures were measured invasively and, according to the fast-flush Gardner’s test, each patient was attributed to one of two groups depending on the presence (R-group) or absence (NR-group) of resonance/underdamping. Invasive pressure values were then compared with the non-invasive ones.ResultsA total of 11,610 pulses and 1,200 non-invasive blood pressure measurements were analyzed in 300 patients. Ninety-two out of 300 (30.7%) underdamping/resonance arterial signals were found. In these cases (R-group) systolic invasive blood pressure (IBP) average overestimation of non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) was 28.5 (15.9) mmHg (P <0.0001) while in the NR-group the overestimation was 4.1(5.3) mmHg (P <0.0001). The mean IBP-NIBP difference in diastolic pressure in the R-group was −2.2 (10.6) mmHg and, in the NR-group −1.1 (5.8) mmHg. The mean arterial pressure difference was 7.4 (11.2) mmHg in the R-group and 2.3 (6.4) mmHg in the NR-group. A multivariate logistic regression identified five parameters independently associated with underdamping/resonance: polydistrectual arteriopathy (P =0.0023; OR = 2.82), history of arterial hypertension (P =0.0214; OR = 2.09), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P =0.198; OR = 2.61), arterial catheter diameter (20 vs. 18 gauge) (P <0.0001; OR = 0.35) and sedation (P =0.0131; OR = 0.5). The ROC curve for the maximal pressure–time ratio, showed an optimum selected cut-off point of 1.67 mmHg/msec with a specificity of 97% (95% CI: 95.13 to 99.47%) and a sensitivity of 77% (95% CI: 67.25 to 85.28%) and an area under the ROC curve by extended trapezoidal rule of 0.88.ConclusionPhysicians should be aware of the possibility that IBP can be inaccurate in a consistent number of patients due to underdamping/resonance phenomena. NIBP measurement may help to confirm/exclude the presence of this artifact avoiding inappropriate treatments.

Arterial blood pressure (BP) is a fundamental cardiovascular variable, is routinely measured in perioperative and intensive care medicine, and has a significant impact on patient management. The clinical reference method for BP monitoring in high-risk surgical patients and critically ill patients is continuous invasive BP measurement using an arterial catheter. A key prerequisite for correct invasive BP monitoring using an arterial catheter is an in-depth understanding of the measurement principle, of BP waveform quality criteria, and of common pitfalls that can falsify BP readings. Here, we describe how to place an arterial catheter, correctly measure BP, and identify and solve common pitfalls. We focus on 5 important steps, namely (1) how to choose the catheter insertion site, (2) how to choose the type of arterial catheter, (3) how to place the arterial catheter, (4) how to level and zero the transducer, and (5) how to check the quality of the BP waveform.

Background Systemic inflammation in COVID-19 often leads to multiple organ failure, including acute kidney injury (AKI). Renal replacement therapy (RRT) in combination with sequential extracorporeal blood purification therapies (EBP) might support renal function, attenuate systemic inflammation, and prevent or mitigate multiple organ dysfunctions in COVID-19. Aim Describe overtime variations of clinical and biochemical features of critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated with EBP with a hemodiafilter characterized by enhanced cytokine adsorption properties. Methods An observational prospective study assessing the outcome of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU (February to April 2020) treated with EBP according to local practice. Main endpoints included overtime variation of IL-6 and multiorgan function-scores, mortality, and occurrence of technical complications or adverse events. Results The study evaluated 37 patients. Median baseline IL-6 was 1230 pg/ml (IQR 895) and decreased overtime (p < 0.001 Kruskal-Wallis test) during the first 72 h of the treatment, with the most significant decrease in the first 24 h (p = 0.001). The reduction in serum IL-6 concentrations correlated with the improvement in organ function, as measured in the decrease of SOFA score (rho = 0.48, p = 0.0003). Median baseline SOFA was 13 (IQR 6) and decreased significantly overtime (p < 0.001 at Kruskal-Wallis test) during the first 72 h of the treatment, with the most significant decrease in the first 48 h (median 8 IQR 5, p = 0.001). Compared to the expected mortality rates, as calculated by APACHE IV, the mean observed rates were 8.3% lower after treatment. The best improvement in mortality rate was observed in patients receiving EBP early on during the ICU stay. Premature clotting (running < 24 h) occurred in patients (18.9% of total) which featured higher effluent dose (median 33.6 ml/kg/h, IQR 9) and higher filtration fraction (median 31%, IQR 7.4). No electrolyte disorders, catheter displacement, circuit disconnection, unexpected bleeding, air, or thromboembolisms due to venous cannulation of EBP were recorded during the treatment. In one case, infection of vascular access occurred during RRT, requiring replacement. Conclusions EBP with heparin-coated hemodiafilter featuring cytokine adsorption properties administered to patients with COVID-19 showed to be feasible and with no adverse events. During the treatment, patients experienced serum IL-6 level reduction, attenuation of systemic inflammation, multiorgan dysfunction improvement, and reduction in expected ICU mortality rate.