Respiratory failure is presumptively caused by microvascular thrombosis in some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COV-ID-19) requiring therapeutic anticoagulation. Anticoagulation treatment may cause life-threatening bleeding complications such as retroperitoneal hemorrhage. To the best of our knowledge, we report first case of a COVID-19 patient treated with therapeutic anticoagulation resulting in psoas hematoma due to lumbar artery bleeding. A 69-year-old patient presented with fever, malaise and progressive shortness of breath to our hospital. He was diagnosed with COVID-19 by RT-PCR. Due to an abnormal coagulation profile, the patient was started on enoxaparin. Over the course of hospitalization, the patient was found to have hypotension with worsening hemoglobin levels. Computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed a large psoas hematoma. Arteriogram revealed lumbar artery bleeding which was treated with embolization. Anticoagulation therapy, while indicated in COVID-19 patients, has its own challenges and guidelines describing dosages and indications in this disease are lacking. Rare bleeding complications such as psoas hematoma should be kept in mind in patients who become hemodynamically unstable, warranting prompt imaging for diagnosis and treatment with arterial embolization, thus eliminating need of surgical intervention.
Background:The objective of the study was to compare the renal outcomes in patients presenting with all-cause cardiogenic shock who were supported by either Impella devices (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or vasopressors alone. Outcomes of cardiogenic shock remain poor even with the advancement of early revascularization and circulatory supportive care. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device has emerged as an effective strategy in protecting end organ function especially renal function during high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in patients with cardiogenic shock. Currently, comparative data amongst various MCS modalities and their association with improvement of renal function in cardiogenic shock patients have not been well characterized.Methods: Data from New Jersey Cardiac Catheterization Data registry of cardiogenic shock patients from a single tertiary care institution that underwent cardiac catheterization and the modality used to treat were obtained, either with Impella devices, IABP, or treatment with vasopressors alone. Retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) on patients with cardiogenic shock prior to and after cardiac catheterization and renal function was evaluated over the course of 96 h after cardiac catheterization. Statistical analysis was performed to ascertain significant difference in creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients who received Impella devices, IABP, or were treated with vasopressors alone.Results: A total of 61 all-cause cardiogenic shock patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study with 19 receiving IABPs, 15 receiving Impella devices, and 27 treated with vasopressors alone. Baseline characteristics among these three groups did not show any statistically significant difference. A total of 29 cardiogenic shock patients had experienced AKI prior to cardiac catheterization in which those receiving Impella devices showed statistically significant decrease in creatinine and increase in eGFR at 72 and 96 h (P < 0.05) compared to baseline. Within the same cohort, Impella group showed statistically significant lower creatinine at 96 h when compared to IABP. Patients that experienced AKI after cardiac catheterization did not show any statistically significant changes in renal function regardless of modality used. Conclusion:The results of our study suggest that Impella devices improve renal function in all-cause cardiogenic shock patients who experience AKI prior to undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Objectives: Although there have been associations between diabetes and mortality in COVID-19 patients, it is unclear whether this is driven by the disease itself or whether it can be attributed to an inability to exhibit effective glucose control. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 292 patients admitted to a tertiary referral center to assess the association of mortality and glycemic control among COVID-19-positive patients. We used a logistic regression model to determine whether average fasting glycemic levels were associated with in-hospital mortality. Results: Among the diabetic and non-diabetic patients, there were no differences between mortality or length of stay. Mean glucose levels in the first 10 days of admission were higher on average among those who died (150–185 mg/dL) compared with those who survived (125–165 mg/dL). When controlling for multiple variables, there was a significant association between mean fasting glucose and mortality (odds ratio = 1.014, p < 0.001). The associations between glucose and mortality remained when controlled for comorbidities and glucocorticoid use. Conclusion: The results of this retrospective study show an association between mortality and inpatient glucose levels, suggesting that there may be some benefit to tighter glucose control in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.