Evaluation of procalcitonin in hemorrhagic shock: a pilot study

Abstract

An increased secretion of procalcitonin (PCT) is primarily due to systemic inflammation of bacterial origin, as PCT is used to diagnose and manage sepsis. However, other conditions can induce high plasma levels of PCT, and hemorrhagic shock may be one of these as we found in clinical practice. The aim of this pilot, observational and prospective study was to investigate the role of PCT in hemorrhagic shock and if it could help in distinguishing between different types of shock. We enrolled 15 patients who entered the shock room of our Emergency Department (ED) with a diagnosis of hemodynamic shock, defined as hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, or medial arterial pressure < 65 mmHg), and/or elevated lactate level (> 2 mmol/L), with one or more signs of cerebral or systemic hypoperfusion. For all the patients we dosed PCT at the time of admission, and we collected them into three different groups - septic, hemorrhagic and mixed shock - based on clinical presentation and laboratory and instrumental examination. First results did not show a significant increase of PCT in patients with hemorrhagic shock alone (average 0.12 ± 0.07 ng/mL), while PCT levels were similarly high in those with septic and mixed shock (17.63 ± 32.16 and 24.62 ± 33.02 respectively). PCT is not a marker of bleeding shock and does not help in distinguishing if bleeding or sepsis have the major impact on hemodynamics in those with mixed shock. However, patients with sepsis usually access the ED a few days after the initial infectious and inflammatory process has begun, while those with a major bleeding ask for intervention at the very first beginning. Thus, it may be helpful to see is PCT levels rise after some time from the bleeding start, or to investigate a different biomarker that rises earlier in course of systemic disfunction, such as presepsin. Finally, we also aimed at investigating if PCT levels would show any correlation with age of patients, regardless of the type of shock: results provided an higher PCT in individuals ≥ 80 years old, than in those < 80 years old.

Barotrauma during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19: a balance between risks and benefits

Ventilatory support is vital for the management of severe forms of COVID-19. Non-invasive ventilation is often used in patients who do not meet criteria for intubation or when invasive ventilation is not available, especially in a pandemic when resources are limited. Despite non-invasive ventilation providing effective respiratory support for some forms of acute respiratory failure, data about its effectiveness in patients with viral-related pneumonia are inconclusive. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection causes life-threatening respiratory failure, weakening the lung parenchyma and increasing the risk of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma results from positive pressure ventilation leading to elevated transalveolar pressure, and in turn to alveolar rupture and leakage of air into the extra-alveolar tissue. This article reviews the literature regarding the use of non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other epidemic or pandemic viral infections and the related risk of barotrauma.

Patient safety recommendations and management in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia suspicion: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Since December 2019, new pneumonia of unknown aetiology broke out in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Subsequently, a virus, later named as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was identified as the causative agent of the disease. Currently, the epidemic has spread all over the world. The most common manifestations of COVID-19 are fever, fatigue and dry cough. At the moment, the nuclide acid test is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of this infection.

METHODS

In the present paper, we report our experience with all patients who came to the Emergency Department from March 1 to April 1, 2020, with suggestive symptoms of COVID-19 infection. Patients: they all underwent a first oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swab in the emergency department and, if negative, a second one after at least 24 hours.

RESULTS

Our study shows how the results obtained at time zero are usually identical to the ones obtained after 24 hours. We thus suggest, in patients with high suspicion of COVID19 and a negative result at the first swab, to repeat the test after at least 48 hours, during which patients with symptoms of COVID-19 pneumonia disease should be kept in isolation to avoid the risk of contagion.

CONCLUSIONS

these measures and in particular the early identifica-tion of cases with consequent isolation will allow the containment of the spread of the virus, representing one of the fundamental measures to guarantee and strengthen the control of the infection to reduce hospital admissions, the overload of national health service and health costs.