Background Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) emerged as important fungal complications in patients with COVID-19-associated severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). Whether mould active antifungal prophylaxis (MAFP) can prevent CAPA remains elusive so far. Methods In this observational study, we included all consecutive patients admitted to intensive care units with COVID-19-associated ARF between September 1, 2020, and May 1, 2021. We compared patients with versus without antifungal prophylaxis with respect to CAPA incidence (primary outcome) and mortality (secondary outcome). Propensity score adjustment was performed to account for any imbalances in baseline characteristics. CAPA cases were classified according to European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM)/International Society of Human and Animal Mycoses (ISHAM) consensus criteria. Results We included 132 patients, of whom 75 (57%) received antifungal prophylaxis (98% posaconazole). Ten CAPA cases were diagnosed, after a median of 6 days following ICU admission. Of those, 9 CAPA cases were recorded in the non-prophylaxis group and one in the prophylaxis group, respectively. However, no difference in 30-day ICU mortality could be observed. Thirty-day CAPA incidence estimates were 1.4% (95% CI 0.2–9.7) in the MAFP group and 17.5% (95% CI 9.6–31.4) in the group without MAFP (p = 0.002). The respective subdistributional hazard ratio (sHR) for CAPA incidence comparing the MAFP versus no MAFP group was of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01–0.63; p = 0.017). Conclusion In ICU patients with COVID-19 ARF, antifungal prophylaxis was associated with significantly reduced CAPA incidence, but this did not translate into improved survival. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MAFP with respect to CAPA incidence and clinical outcomes.

Bleeding and transfusion, common challenges in cardiac surgery, are influenced by comorbidity, the complexity of surgery, hypothermia, and the specifics of cardiopulmonary bypass inducing hemodilution, thrombin generation, fibrinolysis, and platelet dysfunction.1–4 Nearly 11% of patients with acute coronary syndromes undergo coronary artery surgery during dual antiplatelet therapy.5 Although preoperative P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy may reduce ischemic events, late preoperative exposure to P2Y12 receptor inhibitors increases the risk of surgery-associated bleeding and reoperation for bleeding.2,6–8

BackgroundPeripheral nerve stimulation is commonly used for nerve localization in regional anaesthesia, but recommended stimulation currents of 0.3–0.5 mA do not reliably produce motor activity in the absence of intraneural needle placement. As this may be particularly true in patients with diabetic neuropathy, we examined the stimulation threshold in patients with and without diabetes.MethodsPreoperative evaluation included a neurological exam and electroneurography. During ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block, we measured the current required to produce motor activity for the tibial and common peroneal nerve in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Proximity to the nerve was evaluated post-hoc using ultrasound imaging.ResultsAverage stimulation currents did not differ between diabetic (n=55) and non-diabetic patients (n=52). Although the planned number of patients was not reached, the power goal for the mean stimulation current was met. Subjects with diminished pressure perception showed increased thresholds for the common peroneal nerve (median 1.30 vs. 0.57 mA in subjects with normal perception, P=0.042), as did subjects with decreased pain sensation (1.60 vs. 0.50 mA in subjects with normal sensation, P=0.038). Slowed ulnar nerve conduction velocity predicted elevated mean stimulation current (r=−0.35, P=0.002). Finally, 15 diabetic patients required more than 0.5 mA to evoke a motor response, despite intraneural needle placement (n=4), or required currents ≥2 mA despite needle-nerve contact, vs three such patients (1 intraneural, 2 with ≥2 mA) among non-diabetic patients (P=0.003).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that stimulation thresholds of 0.3–0.5 mA may not reliably determine close needle-nerve contact during popliteal sciatic nerve block, particularly in patients with diabetic neuropathy.Clinical trial registrationNCT01488474

No abstract

No abstract