COVID-19 is a pandemic that has affected not only the United States, but the entire world. The impact it has had has overwhelmed the entire healthcare system, from the unknown carrier status, poor testing capabilities to hospitals running out of ventilators for severely ill patients. There has been a variety of potential treatment modalities for the various forms of illness ranging from asymptomatic carriers to the ventilated ICU patients. These include anti-inflammatory medications, antibiotics, immune-modulators, convalescent plasma, and others. The cytokine storm that inflicts some patients can be devastating to the vital organs of the human body in the form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), renal failure, coagulopathy, and death. Cytosorbents Ò cytokine filter is a potential treatment methodology aimed at reducing the cytokine storm, thus serving as a bridge for therapy in the acutely ill patients infected with COVID-19. The following case report demonstrates the utility in a critically ill patient who survived the cytokine storm after receiving the cytokine filter via continuous renal replacement therapy bridging him to further definitive therapy.

No abstract

Intravascular volume expansion has been employed successfully for treatment of ischemic stroke from cerebral vasospasm and from cerebrovascular occlusive disease. The physiologic mechanism responsible for this success has not previously been delineated in controlled experimentation. The objective of this investigation was to delineate the effects of cardiac output and of hemodilution in a primate model of focal cerebral ischemia. Two groups of anesthetized rhesus monkeys received extensive cardiovascular monitoring, and local cerebral blood flow (lCBF) was determined in both ischemic and nonischemic brain regions by the hydrogen clearance method. Both groups were subjected to unilateral middle cerebral artery occlusion. One group then underwent blood volume expansion with Dextran 40 (cardiac output augmentation), and one group underwent isovolemic hemodilution with Dextran 40, cardiac output being maintained constant. Significant increases in lCBF occurred in ischemic regions only and occurred only in response to augmentation of cardiac output. Isovolemic hemodilution failed to produce any changes in lCBF. This investigation indicates that ischemic brain regions are selectively vulnerable to alterations in cardiac output, these effects being independent of alterations in blood pressure. Blood viscosity changes may play only a minor role. This study strongly suggests an important role of intravascular volume expansion and cardiac output augmentation in treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

In this simulation study, paramedics had difficulty performing FAST scans with a high degree of accuracy. However, they were more apt to call a patient positive, limiting the likelihood for false-negative triage.

BackgroundThoracic trauma accounts for 10%–15% of all trauma admissions. Rib fractures are the most common injury following blunt thoracic trauma. Epidural analgesia improves patient outcomes but is not without problems. The use of continuous intercostal nerve blockade (CINB) may offer superior pain control with fewer side effects. This study’s objective was to compare the rate of pulmonary complications when traumatic rib fractures were treated with CINB vs epidurals.MethodsA hospital trauma registry provided retrospective data from 2008 to 2013 for patients with 2 or more traumatic rib fractures. All subjects were admitted and were treated with either an epidural or a subcutaneously placed catheter for continuous intercostal nerve blockade. Our primary outcome was a composite of either pneumonia or respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included total hospital days, total ICU days, and days on the ventilator.Results12.5% (N=8) of the CINB group developed pneumonia or had respiratory failure compared to 16.3% (N=7) in the epidural group. No statistical difference (P=0.58) in the incidence of pneumonia or vent dependent respiratory failure was observed. There was a significant reduction (P=0.05) in hospital days from 9.72 (SD 9.98) in the epidural compared to 6.98 (SD 4.67) in the CINB group. The rest of our secondary outcomes showed no significant difference.ConclusionThis study did not show a difference in the rate of pneumonia or ventilator-dependent respiratory failure in the CINB vs epidural groups. It was not sufficiently powered. Our data supports a reduction in hospital days when CINB is used vs epidural. CINB may have advantages over epidurals such as fewer complications, fewer contraindications, and a shorter time to placement. Further studies are needed to confirm these statements.