Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure reduces right ventricular dysfunction in COVID-19 patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective single-center study.

While mechanical ventilation practices on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) are variable, most institutions utilize a lung rest strategy utilizing relatively low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The effect of PEEP titration using esophageal manometry during VV ECMO on pulmonary and cardiac function is unknown. This was a retrospective study of 69 patients initiated on VV ECMO between March 2020 through November 2021. Patients underwent standard PEEP (typically 10 cm H2O) or optimal PEEP (PEEP titrated to an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure 0-3 cm H2O) throughout the ECMO run. The optimal PEEP strategy had higher levels of applied PEEP (17.9 vs. 10.8 cm H2O on day 2 of ECMO), decreased incidence of hemodynamically significant RV dysfunction (4.55% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.0001), and higher survival to decannulation (72.7% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.022). Survival to discharge did not reach statistical significance (61.4% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.211). In univariate logistic regression analysis, optimal PEEP was associated with less hemodynamically significant RV dysfunction with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01-0.27, p = 0.0008) and increased survival to decannulation with an OR of 3.39 (95% CI 1.23-9.79), p = 0.02), though other confounding factors may have contributed.

COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among a majority black sample in the Southern US: public health implications from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have high caseloads in the US, with vaccines a critical component of the response. Disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality have been identified across states and racial/ethnic groups, which are likely in part due to disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake. This study aims to better understand and contextualize COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among persons from under-represented racial/ethnic populations in the Southern US. METHODS: We conducted 29 in-depth interviews with a sample of households in Atlanta, GA that were selected from an address-based sampling frame. We purposively approached households, from February 6 to June 27, 2021, that declined participation in a national COVID-19 serosurvey to gain perspectives of people who are often under-represented in research. Interviews were conducted in-person or over phone calls for participants with that preference. Thematic analysis was used to identify barriers and facilitators of COVID-19 vaccination, and to contextualize drivers of vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Decision-making about vaccination was described as dynamic, and was compared to the feeling of being on a roller coaster. The predominant reported sources of information were mass media and social media. Facilitators of vaccination included altruism, positive communication from trusted community members and workplace colleagues, and local vaccine provision sites. Driving reasons for vaccine hesitancy included limited trust in the government and concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, which one participant compared to jumping off a cliff without a tested rope. Among a subset of participants, beliefs regarding perceived intent to harm the Black community were prevalent. Opportunities to optimally address vaccine hesitancy included countering negative social media messages with positive messaging that matches the community's vivid ways of discussing vaccines, collaborating with community stakeholders on vaccine promotion efforts, and offering workplace-based vaccine promotion efforts. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents data that indicate it may be optimal to more broadly define 'community' in COVID-19 vaccine promotion efforts to include social media and workplace venues. To optimize vaccine and vaccine booster uptake and equity, public health must address historic racism and other concerns by using outreach that is grounded in communities.