Vasopressors are an integral component of the management of septic shock and are traditionally given via a central venous catheter (CVC) due to the risk of tissue injury and necrosis if extravasated. However, the need for a CVC for the management of septic shock has been questioned, and the risk of extravasation and incidence of severe injury when vasopressors are given via a peripheral venous line (PVL) remains poorly defined. We performed a retrospective chart review of 202 patients who received vasopressors through a PVL. The objective was to describe the vasopressors administered peripherally, PVL size and location, the incidence of extravasation events, and the management of extravasation events. The primary vasopressors used were norepinephrine and phenylephrine. The most common PVL sites used were the forearm and antecubital fossa. The incidence of extravasation was 4%. All of the events were managed conservatively; none required an antidote or surgical management. Vasopressors were restarted at another peripheral site in 88% of the events. The incidence of extravasation was similar to prior studies. The use of a PVL for administration of vasopressors can be considered in patients with a contraindication to a CVC.

Glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency facilitates human coronavirus infection due to glutathione depletion. G6PD deficiency may especially predispose to hemolysis upon coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection when employing pro-oxidant therapy. However, glutathione depletion is reversible by Nacetylcysteine (NAC) administration. We describe a severe case of COVID-19 infection in a G6PD-deficient patient treated with hydroxychloroquine who benefited from intravenous (IV) NAC beyond reversal of hemolysis. NAC blocked hemolysis and elevation of liver enzymes, C-reactive protein (CRP), and ferritin and allowed removal from respirator and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenator and full recovery of the G6PDdeficient patient. NAC was also administered to 9 additional respirator-dependent COVID-19-infected patients without G6PD deficiency. NAC elicited clinical improvement and markedly reduced CRP in all patients and ferritin in 9/10 patients. NAC mechanism of action may involve the blockade of viral infection and the ensuing cytokine storm that warrant follow-up confirmatory studies in the setting of controlled clinical trials.

The approach to monitoring anticoagulation in adult patients receiving heparin on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is controversial. The objective of this study was to compare the correlation between anti-Xa and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) with heparin dose and to describe their association with clinical events in adult ECMO patients. We conducted a retrospective single-center study of 34 adult ECMO patients whose heparin was monitored by anti-Xa and/or aPTT. The heparin dose-to-assay correlation coefficient was 0.106 for aPTT and 0.414 for anti-Xa (p < 0.001). Major thrombotic and hemorrhagic events occurred in 14.7% and 26.5% of patients, respectively. The median anti-Xa in patients who experienced a major thrombotic event was 0.09 (0.06–0.25) IU/mL compared with 0.36 (0.26–0.44) IU/mL in patients who did not (p = 0.031), whereas the median aPTT did not differ between these groups. The maximum aPTT in patients who experienced a major bleed was 96.9 (76.0–200) seconds compared with 63.5 (44.4–98.6) seconds in patients who did not (p = 0.049), whereas the maximum anti-Xa did not differ between these groups. Monitoring both anti-Xa and aPTT may be warranted to safely provide understanding of pure heparin activity as well as underlying bleeding diatheses in adult ECMO patients.

No abstract

Infectious DiseaseBackground. Transplanting hepatitis C viremic donor organs into hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipients is becoming increasingly common; however, practices for posttransplant direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment vary widely. Protracted insurance authorization processes for DAA therapy often lead to treatment delays. Methods. At our institution, 2 strategies for providing DAA therapy to HCVrecipients of HCV + transplants have been used. For thoracic organ recipients, an institution-subsidized course of initial therapy was provided to ensure an early treatment initiation date. For abdominal organ recipients, insurance approval for DAA coverage was sought once viremia developed, and treatment was initiated only once the insurance-authorized supply of drug was received. To evaluate the clinical impact of these 2 strategies, we retrospectively collected data pertaining to the timing of DAA initiation, duration of recipient viremia, and monetary costs incurred by patients and the institution for patients managed under these 2 DAA coverage strategies. Results. One hundred fifty-two transplants were performed using HCV viremic donor organs. Eighty-nine patients received DAA treatment without subsidy, and 62 received DAA treatment with subsidy. One patient who never developed viremia posttransplant received no treatment. Subsidizing the initial course enabled earlier treatment initiation (median, 4 d [interquartile range (IQR), 2-7] vs 10 [IQR, 8-13]; P < 0.001) and shorter duration of viremia (median, 16 d [IQR,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) vs 36 [IQR,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]; P < 0.001). Institutional costs averaged $9173 per subsidized patient and $168 per nonsubsidized patient. Three needlestick exposures occurred in caregivers of viremic patients. Conclusions. Recipients and their caregivers stand to benefit from earlier DAA treatment initiation; however, institutional costs to subsidize DAA therapy before insurance authorization are substantial. Insurance authorization processes for DAAs should be revised to accommodate this unique patient group.