Introduction An individualised thromboprophylaxis was implemented in critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on clinical outcome. Methods In this mono-centric, controlled, before-after study, all consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU from March 13th to April 20th 2020 were included. A thromboprophylaxis protocol, including augmented LMWH dosing, individually tailored with anti-Xa measurements and twice-weekly ultrasonography screening for DVT, was implemented on March 31th 2020. Primary endpoint is one-month mortality. Secondary outcomes include two-week and three-week mortality, the incidence of VTE, acute kidney injury and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Multiple regression modelling was used to correct for differences between the two groups. Results 46 patients were included in the before group, 26 patients in the after group. One month mortality decreased from 39.13% to 3.85% (p < 0.001). After correction for confounding variables, one-month mortality was significantly higher in the before group (p = 0.02, OR 8.86 (1.46, 53.75)). The cumulative incidence of VTE and CRRT was respectively 41% and 30.4% in the before group and dropped to 15% (p = 0.03) and 3.8% (p = 0.01), respectively. After correction for confounding variables, risk of VTE (p = 0.03, 6.01 (1.13, 32.12)) and CRRT (p = 0.02, OR 19.21 (1.44, 255.86)) remained significantly higher in the before group. Conclusion Mortality, cumulative risk of VTE and need for CRRT may be significantly reduced in COVID-19 patients by implementation of a more aggressive thromboprophylaxis protocol. Future research should focus on confirmation of these results in a randomized design and on uncovering the mechanisms underlying these observations. Registration number NCT04394000 .

Background/Objectives Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (Endo-CABG) is a minimally invasive CABG procedure with retrograde arterial perfusion. The main objective of this study is to assess neurocognitive outcome after Endo-CABG. Methods/Design In this prospective observational cohort study, patients were categorised into: Endo-CABG (n = 60), a comparative Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) group (n = 60) and a healthy volunteer group (n = 60). A clinical neurological examination was performed both pre- and postoperatively, delirium was assessed postoperatively. A battery of 6 neurocognitive tests, Quality of life (QoL) and the level of depressive feelings were measured at baseline and after 3 months. Patient Satisfaction after Endo-CABG was assessed at 3-month follow-up. Primary endpoints were incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), stroke and delirium after Endo-CABG. Secondary endpoints were QOL, patient satisfaction and the incidence of depressive feelings after Endo-CABG. Results In total, 1 patient after Endo-CABG (1.72%) and 1 patient after PCI (1.67%) suffered from stroke during the 3-month follow-up. POCD in a patient is defined as a Reliable Change Index ≤-1.645 or Z-score ≤-1.645 in at least two tests, and was found in respectively 5 and 6 patients 3 months after Endo-CABG and PCI. Total incidence of POCD/stroke was not different (PCI: n= 7 [15.9%]; Endo-CABG: n= 6 [13.0%], p = 0.732). ICU delirium after Endo-CABG was found in 5 (8.6%) patients. QoL increased significantly three months after Endo-CABG and was comparable with QoL level after PCI and in the control group. Patient satisfaction after Endo-CABG and PCI was comparable. At follow-up, the level of depressive feelings was decreased in all groups. Conclusions The incidence of poor neurocognitive outcome, including stroke, POCD and postoperative ICU delirium until three months after Endo-CABG is low and comparable with PCI. Trial registration Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02979782)

Background. Severity scoring systems are inherent to ICU practice for multiple purposes. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems are designed for ICU mortality prediction. This study aims to validate APACHE IV in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Methods. All COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 13, 2020, and October 17, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. APACHE II and APACHE IV scores as well as SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours after admission. Discrimination for mortality of all three scoring systems was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Youden index was determined for the scoring system with the best discriminative performance. The Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess calibration. All analyses were performed for both the overall population as in a subgroup treated with anti-Xa adjusted dosages of LMWHs. Results. 116 patients were admitted to our ICU during the study period. 13 were excluded for various reasons, leaving 103 patients in the statistical analysis of the overall population. 57 patients were treated with anti-Xa adjusted prophylactic dosages of LMWH and were supplementary analyzed in a subgroup analysis. APACHE IV had the best discriminative power of the three scoring systems, both in the overall population (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.67 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.63) as in the subgroup (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.82 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.7). This model exhibits good calibration. Hosmer–Lemeshow p values for APACHE IV were 0.9234 for the overall population and 0.8017 for the subgroup. Calibration p values of the APACHE II score were 0.1394 and 0.6475 for the overall versus subgroup, respectively. Conclusions. APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration of the considered scoring systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients, both in the overall group and in the subgroup with anti-Xa adjusted LMWH doses. Only in the subgroup analysis, discriminative abilities of APACHE IV were very good. This trial is registered with NCT04713852.

Coronavirus disease 2019 , caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first diagnosed in Wuhan, China, after a series of unexplained cases of severe pneumonia in December 2019 [1]. Despite important precautions that were taken, the virus spread rapidly worldwide and arrived in Belgium in February 2020. From the little experience and data of other countries, we knew that the presence of the infection was highly heterogeneous [2,3]. The majority of the patients were asymptomatic or showed mild symptoms, but around 20% of the patients required hospitalization, of whom 5-10% became critically ill, requiring intensive care admission and mechanical ventilation, with still a high mortality rate [4].

No abstract