Search

Background: This study aimed to assess a potential organ protective effect of volatile sedation in a scenario of severe inflammation with an early cytokine storm (in particular IL-6 elevation) in patients suffering from COVID-19-related lung injury with invasive mechanical ventilation and sedation. Methods: This is a small-scale pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial from four tertiary hospitals in Switzerland, conducted between April 2020 and May 2021. 60 patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to severe COVID-19-related lung injury were included and randomized to 48-hour sedation with sevoflurane vs. continuous intravenous sedation (= control) within 24 h after intubation. The primary composite outcome was determined as mortality or persistent organ dysfunction (POD), defined as the need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or renal replacement therapy at day 28. Secondary outcomes were the length of ICU and hospital stay, adverse events, routine laboratory parameters (creatinine, urea), and plasma inflammatory mediators. Results: 28 patients were randomized to sevoflurane, 32 to the control arm. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed no difference in the primary endpoint with 11 (39%) sevoflurane and 13 (41%) control patients (p = 0.916) reaching the primary outcome. Five patients died within 28 days in each group (16% vs. 18%, p = 0.817). Of the 28-day survivors, 6 (26%) and 8 (30%) presented with POD (p = 0.781). There was a significant difference regarding the need for vasopressors (1 (4%) patient in the sevoflurane arm, 7 (26%) in the control one (p = 0.028)). Length of ICU stay, hospital stay, and registered adverse events within 28 days were comparable, except for acute kidney injury (AKI), with 11 (39%) sevoflurane vs. 2 (6%) control patients (p = 0.001). The blood levels of IL-6 in the first few days after the onset of the lung injury were less distinctly elevated than expected. Conclusions: No evident benefits were observed with short sevoflurane sedation on mortality and POD. Unexpectedly low blood levels of IL-6 might indicate a moderate injury with therefore limited improvement options of sevoflurane. Acute renal issues suggest caution in using sevoflurane for sedation in COVID-19. Trial registration: The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04355962) on 2020/04/21. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement has emerged as an alternative to surgical eschar removal. Indications include partial thickness, mixed pattern, and full-thickness burns. Enzymatic debridement has been approved by the European Medicines Agency for treating burn wounds affecting <15% total body surface area (TBSA). Data and evidence for the treatment of areas >15% TBSA in one session is scarce. The aim of this retrospective study was to retrospectively analyze off-label use of enzymatic debridement in a single burn center for large TBSA burns.Methods: Between 01/2017 and 12/2018, 59 patients with partial- to full-thickness burns underwent enzymatic debridement in a single center study. Patients were categorized into two groups: the regular use group with a treated area less than 15% TBSA and the off-label group (OG) with larger TBSA debrided in one session. Treatment was evaluated for systemic inflammatory reaction, bleeding, hemodynamic instability and electrolyte shifts.Results: In total, 49 patients were treated in the regular use group with a median application area of 6% (IQR 2.5-9.5) and 10 patients were treated in the off-label group with a median application area of 18% (IQR 15-19) TBSA. We found no significant differences regarding blood pressure, body temperature or hemodynamic stability during and after enzymatic debridement. No treatment-related serious adverse events were observed in either group. Catecholamine use was similar in both groups. No differences in leukocyte counts, CRP, PCT and lactate prior to application and during the following three days were observed. Sodium, potassium, chloride and phosphate levels did not differ. We found no evidence of an electrolyte shift. Survival was 49 of 49 patients (100%) in the RG and 7 of 10 patients (70%) in the OG (p = 0.004).Conclusion: Enzymatic debridement did not result in any expected or unexpected side effects in the patient groups investigated. These preliminary results indicate the potential safety of bromelain-based enzymatic debridementin the treatment of burns greater than 15% TBSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]