Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated coagulopathy (CAC) leads to thromboembolic events in a high number of critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, specific diagnostic or therapeutic algorithms for CAC have not been established. In the current study, we analyzed coagulation abnormalities with point-of-care testing (POCT) and their relation to hemostatic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19 induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Our hypothesis was that specific diagnostic patterns can be identified in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS at risk of thromboembolic complications utilizing POCT. Methods This is a single-center, retrospective observational study. Longitudinal data from 247 rotational thromboelastometries (Rotem®) and 165 impedance aggregometries (Multiplate®) were analysed in 18 patients consecutively admitted to the ICU with a COVID-19 induced ARDS between March 12th to June 30th, 2020. Results Median age was 61 years (IQR: 51–69). Median PaO2/FiO2 on admission was 122 mmHg (IQR: 87–189), indicating moderate to severe ARDS. Any form of hemostatic complication occurred in 78 % of the patients with deep vein/arm thrombosis in 39 %, pulmonary embolism in 22 %, and major bleeding in 17 %. In Rotem® elevated A10 and maximum clot firmness (MCF) indicated higher clot strength. The delta between EXTEM A10 minus FIBTEM A10 (ΔA10) > 30 mm, depicting the sole platelet-part of clot firmness, was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic events (OD: 3.7; 95 %CI 1.3–10.3; p = 0.02). Multiplate® aggregometry showed hypoactive platelet function. There was no correlation between single Rotem® and Multiplate® parameters at intensive care unit (ICU) admission and thromboembolic or bleeding complications. Conclusions Rotem® and Multiplate® results indicate hypercoagulability and hypoactive platelet dysfunction in COVID-19 induced ARDS but were all in all poorly related to hemostatic complications..

Background: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. Methods: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the ‘Cochrane Risk of bias’ assessment tool 1.0. Results: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36% (27/75) were pro- and 64% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32%), a new primary outcome (26%), and different outcome assessment times (26%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as ‘overall low risk of bias’ compared to non-registered trials (64% vs 28%). Conclusions: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.

Background Approximately one in three patients suffers from preoperative anaemia. Even though haemoglobin is measured before surgery, anaemia management is not implemented in every hospital. Objective Here, we demonstrate the implementation of an anaemia walk‐in clinic at an Orthopedic University Hospital. To improve the diagnosis of iron deficiency (ID), we examined whether reticulocyte haemoglobin (Ret‐He) could be a useful additional parameter. Material and Methods In August 2019, an anaemia walk‐in clinic was established. Between September and December 2019, major orthopaedic surgical patients were screened for preoperative anaemia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of preoperative anaemia. Secondary endpoints included Ret‐He level, red blood cell (RBC) transfusion rate, in‐hospital length of stay and anaemia at hospital discharge. Results A total of 104 patients were screened for anaemia. Preoperative anaemia rate was 20.6%. Intravenous iron was supplemented in 23 patients. Transfusion of RBC units per patient (1.7 ± 1.2 vs. 0.2 ± 0.9; p = 0.004) and hospital length of stay (13.1 ± 4.8 days vs. 10.6 ± 5.1 days; p = 0.068) was increased in anaemic patients compared to non‐anaemic patients. Ret‐He values were significantly lower in patients with ID anaemia (33.3 pg [28.6–40.2 pg]) compared to patients with ID (35.3 pg [28.9–38.6 pg]; p = 0.015) or patients without anaemia (35.4 pg [30.2–39.4 pg]; p = 0.001). Conclusion Preoperative anaemia is common in orthopaedic patients. Our results proved the feasibility of an anaemia walk‐in clinic to manage preoperative anaemia. Furthermore, our analysis supports the use of Ret‐He as an additional parameter for the diagnosis of ID in surgical patients.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.