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 The viral load and tissue distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remain important questions. The current study investigated SARS-CoV-2 viral load, biodistribution and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody formation in patients suffering from severe corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods This is a retrospective single-center study in 23 patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS. Data were collected within routine intensive care. SARS-CoV-2 viral load was assessed via reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Overall, 478 virology samples were taken. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody detection of blood samples was performed with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results Most patients (91%) suffered from severe ARDS during ICU treatment with a 30-day mortality of 30%. None of the patients received antiviral treatment. Tracheal aspirates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 100% of the cases, oropharyngeal swabs only in 77%. Blood samples were positive in 26% of the patients. No difference of viral load was found in tracheal or blood samples with regard to 30-day survival or disease severity. SARS-CoV-2 was never found in dialysate. Serologic testing revealed significantly lower concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing IgM and IgA antibodies in survivors compared to non-survivors (p = 0.009). Conclusions COVID-19 induced ARDS is accompanied by a high viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in tracheal aspirates, which remained detectable in the majority throughout intensive care treatment. Remarkably, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was never detected in dialysate even in patients with RNAemia. Viral load or the buildup of neutralizing antibodies was not associated with 30-day survival or disease severity.

Objective In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form. Methods We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT₃-, D₂-, NK₁-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia. Results 585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies’ overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing. Conclusions There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

Objectives The severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is largely determined by the immune response. First studies indicate altered lymphocyte counts and function. However, interactions of pro- and anti-inflammatory mechanisms remain elusive. In the current study we characterized the immune responses in patients suffering from severe COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods This was a single-center retrospective study in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14th and May 28th 2020 (n = 39). Longitudinal data were collected within routine clinical care, including flow-cytometry of lymphocyte subsets, cytokine analysis and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15). Antibody responses against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike protein were analyzed. Results All patients suffered from severe ARDS, 30.8% died. Interleukin (IL)-6 was massively elevated at every time-point. The anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 was concomitantly upregulated with IL-6. The cellular response was characterized by lymphocytopenia with low counts of CD8+ T cells, natural killer (NK) and naïve T helper cells. CD8+ T and NK cells recovered after 8 to 14 days. The B cell system was largely unimpeded. This coincided with a slight increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-RBD immunoglobulin (Ig) G and a decrease in anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-RBD IgM. GDF-15 levels were elevated throughout ICU treatment. Conclusions Massively elevated levels of IL-6 and a delayed cytotoxic immune defense characterized severe COVID-19-induced ARDS. The B cell response and antibody production were largely unimpeded. No obvious imbalance of pro- and anti-inflammatory mechanisms was observed, with elevated GDF-15 levels suggesting increased tissue resilience.