Objectives Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and 30 in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. The need for mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated. Results The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders. Conclusion The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) during pregnancy is a rare but serious complication. Intravenous alteplase is the only medication approved for hyperacute treatment of AIS; however, it has not been evaluated prospectively in pregnancy. Pregnancy was an exclusion criterion in prospective AIS studies and was only recently removed as a relative contraindication in the 2018 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke guidelines. Due to the exclusion of pregnant women from randomized controlled trials, the safety of fibrinolytic therapy in pregnant patients is not well established. In this review, we report the use of intravenous alteplase for AIS in two pregnant patients, with temporally associated clinical improvement and without complications to either the mother or fetus. Additionally, we summarize a systematic review of the literature for both intravenous and intra‐arterial alteplase use for AIS in pregnant patients. A total of 31 cases met inclusion criteria for this review of assessment of safety and efficacy of alteplase use in pregnancy. Existing case reports and guidelines support the use of alteplase for AIS in pregnant patients without contraindications.

No abstract

No abstract