Intrapulmonary and Intracardiac Shunts in Adult COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ICU Patients Using Echocardiography and Contrast Bubble Studies (COVID-Shunt Study): A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Studies have suggested intrapulmonary shunts may contribute to hypoxemia in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with worse associated outcomes. We evaluated the presence of right-to-left (R-L) shunts in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS patients using a comprehensive hypoxemia workup for shunt etiology and associations with mortality.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational cohort study.

SETTING

Four tertiary hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

PATIENTS

Adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated, ICU patients admitted with COVID-19 or non-COVID (November 16, 2020, to September 1, 2021).

INTERVENTIONS

Agitated-saline bubble studies with transthoracic echocardiography/transcranial Doppler ± transesophageal echocardiography assessed for R-L shunts presence.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcomes were shunt frequency and association with hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis was used for adjustment. The study enrolled 226 patients (182 COVID-19 vs 42 non-COVID). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 47-67 yr) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of 30 (IQR, 21-36). In COVID-19 patients, the frequency of R-L shunt was 31 of 182 COVID patients (17.0%) versus 10 of 44 non-COVID patients (22.7%), with no difference detected in shunt rates (risk difference [RD], -5.7%; 95% CI, -18.4 to 7.0; p = 0.38). In the COVID-19 group, hospital mortality was higher for those with R-L shunt compared with those without (54.8% vs 35.8%; RD, 19.0%; 95% CI, 0.1-37.9; p = 0.05). This did not persist at 90-day mortality nor after adjustment with regression.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of increased R-L shunt rates in COVID-19 compared with non-COVID controls. R-L shunt was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients, but this did not persist at 90-day mortality or after adjusting using logistic regression.

Lung Ultrasound for Cardiologists in the Time of COVID-19

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a point-of-care ultrasound technique used for its portability, widespread availability, and ability to provide real-time diagnostic information and procedural guidance. LUS outperforms lung auscultation and chest X-ray, and it is an alternative to chest computed tomography in selected cases. Cardiologists may enhance their physical and echocardiographic examination with the addition of LUS. We present a practical guide to LUS, including device selection, scanning, findings, and interpretation. We outline a 3-point scanning protocol using 2-dimensional and M-mode imaging to evaluate the pleural line, pleural space, and parenchyma. We describe LUS findings and interpretation for common causes of respiratory failure. We provide guidance specific of COVID-19, which at the time of writing is a global pandemic. In this context, LUS emerges as a particularly useful tool for the diagnosis and management of patients with cardiopulmonary disease.

Comparison of propofol-based versus volatile-based anaesthesia and postoperative sedation in cardiac surgical patients: a prospective, randomized, study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have shown conflicting results regarding the use of volatile anaesthesia before or after an ischaemic insult in cardiac surgical patients and its effect on myocardial injury. This may be attributable to the failure of continuing volatile agents into the early postoperative period. We hypothesised that combined volatilebased anaesthesia and postoperative sedation would decrease the extent of myocardial injury after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) when compared with an intravenous, propofol-based approach. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of the perioperative protocol and investigate whether volatile anaesthesia provides cardioprotection in patients undergoing CABG.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled trial enrolling 157 patients with preserved left ventricular function scheduled for elective or urgent on-pump CABG. Patients received either volatile- or propofol-based anaesthesia and postoperative sedation. Volatile sedation in the ICU was provided with the use of the AnaConDa® device (Sedana Medical, Uppsala, Sweden). The primary outcome was myocardial injury measured by serial troponin measurement at the beginning of surgery, 2, 4 and 12-16 h after ICU admission. The secondary outcome was cardiac performance expressed as cardiac index (CI) and the need for inotropic and vasopressor drug support. The peak postoperative troponin level was defined as the highest level at any time in the first 16 h after surgery.

RESULTS

127 patients completed the study protocol, 60 patients in the volatile group and 67 patients in the propofol group. Troponin levels were similar between groups at all of the measured time points. There were no differences in cardiac index or vasoactive drug support except for the immediate post- cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) period when patients in the volatile group had low systemic vascular resistance, high CI and required more vasopressors. There was no difference in postoperative kidney function, intensive care unit discharge or hospital discharge time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of volatile-based anaesthesia and postoperative sedation did not confer any cardioprotection compared with propofol-based anaesthesia and sedation in patients who had good left ventricular function and were undergoing CABG.