ABSTRACT
COVID-19 related lung disease (CRLD) has emerged as an indication for lung transplantation (LT) in highly select patients. The prevalence and prognostic implication of coexisting pulmonary hypertension (PH) in patients with CRLD listed for LT is not known. Adult patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing database listed for LT for COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome or fibrosis through March 2022 were identified. The prevalence and impact of precapillary PH on pre- and posttransplantation survival was determined. Time-to-event analysis was used to compare outcomes between those with and without precapillary PH. We identified 245 patients listed for LT for CRLD who had right heart catheterization data available at the time of registry listing. Median age of the cohort was 54 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 46, 60), 56 (22.9%) were female, and the median lung allocation score was 81.3 (IQR: 53.3, 89.4). The prevalence of precapillary PH at the time of transplant listing was 27.9%. There was no significant difference in pretransplant mortality in patients with and without precapillary PH (sHR: 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-1.7, p = 0.261). A total of 187 patients ultimately underwent LT; of those, 60 (31.0%) were identified as having precapillary PH during the waitlist period. Posttransplantation survival was similar between patients with and without pretransplant precapillary PH (hazard ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.2-3.7, p = 0.953). We observed a high rate of concomitant precapillary PH in patients listed for LT for CRLD. Though common, coexisting precapillary PH was not associated with a significant difference in either pre- or post-transplantation outcomes.
ABSTRACT
To compare complications and mortality between patients that required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pathogens. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Adult patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. PATIENTS: Nine-thousand two-hundred ninety-one patients that required ECMO for viral mediated ARDS between January 2017 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes of interest were mortality during ECMO support and prior to hospital discharge. Time-to-event analysis and logistic regression were used to compare outcomes between the groups. Among 9,291 included patients, 1,155 required ECMO for non-COVID-19 viral ARDS and 8,136 required ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 had longer duration of ECMO (19.6 d [interquartile range (IQR), 10.1-34.0 d] vs 10.7 d [IQR, 6.3-19.7 d]; p < 0.001), higher mortality during ECMO support (44.4% vs 27.5%; p < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (50.2% vs 34.5%; p < 0.001). Further, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to experience mechanical and clinical complications (membrane lung failure, pneumothorax, intracranial hemorrhage, and superimposed infection). After adjusting for pre-ECMO disease severity, patients with COVID-19 were more than two times as likely to die in the hospital compared with patients with non-COVID-19 viral ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 that require ECMO have longer duration of ECMO, more complications, and higher in-hospital mortality compared with patients with non-COVID-19-related viral ARDS. Further study in patients with COVID-19 is critical to identify the patient phenotype most likely to benefit from ECMO and to better define the role of ECMO in the management of this disease process.
ABSTRACT
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to generate estimates of mortality in patients with COVID-19 that required hospitalization, ICU admission, and organ support. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases was conducted up to December 31, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Previously peer-reviewed observational studies that reported ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-related mortality among greater than or equal to 100 individual patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled estimates of case fatality rates (CFRs) for in-hospital, ICU, MV, RRT, and ECMO-related mortality. ICU-related mortality was additionally analyzed by the study country of origin. Sensitivity analyses of CFR were assessed based on completeness of follow-up data, by year, and when only studies judged to be of high quality were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: One hundred fifty-seven studies evaluating 948,309 patients were included. The CFR for in-hospital mortality, ICU mortality, MV, RRT, and ECMO were 25.9% (95% CI: 24.0-27.8%), 37.3% (95% CI: 34.6-40.1%), 51.6% (95% CI: 46.1-57.0%), 66.1% (95% CI: 59.7-72.2%), and 58.0% (95% CI: 46.9-68.9%), respectively. MV (52.7%, 95% CI: 47.5-58.0% vs 31.3%, 95% CI: 16.1-48.9%; p = 0.023) and RRT-related mortality (66.7%, 95% CI: 60.1-73.0% vs 50.3%, 95% CI: 42.4-58.2%; p = 0.003) decreased from 2020 to 2021. CONCLUSIONS: We present updated estimates of CFR for patients hospitalized and requiring intensive care for the management of COVID-19. Although mortality remain high and varies considerably worldwide, we found the CFR in patients supported with MV significantly improved since 2020.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare complications and mortality between patients that required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pathogens. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Adult patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. PATIENTS: Nine-thousand two-hundred ninety-one patients that required ECMO for viral mediated ARDS between January 2017 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes of interest were mortality during ECMO support and prior to hospital discharge. Time-to-event analysis and logistic regression were used to compare outcomes between the groups. Among 9,291 included patients, 1,155 required ECMO for non-COVID-19 viral ARDS and 8,136 required ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 had longer duration of ECMO (19.6 d [interquartile range (IQR), 10.1–34.0 d] vs 10.7 d [IQR, 6.3–19.7 d];p < 0.001), higher mortality during ECMO support (44.4% vs 27.5%;p < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (50.2% vs 34.5%;p < 0.001). Further, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to experience mechanical and clinical complications (membrane lung failure, pneumothorax, intracranial hemorrhage, and superimposed infection). After adjusting for pre-ECMO disease severity, patients with COVID-19 were more than two times as likely to die in the hospital compared with patients with non-COVID-19 viral ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 that require ECMO have longer duration of ECMO, more complications, and higher in-hospital mortality compared with patients with non-COVID-19–related viral ARDS. Further study in patients with COVID-19 is critical to identify the patient phenotype most likely to benefit from ECMO and to better define the role of ECMO in the management of this disease process.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists regarding use of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) in spontaneously breathing patients. We evaluated the effectiveness of continuous iNO via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in COVID-19 respiratory failure. METHODS: We performed a multicenter cohort study of patients with respiratory failure from COVID-19 managed with HFNC. Patients were stratified by administration of iNO via HFNC. Regression analysis was used to compare the need for mechanical ventilation and secondary endpoints including hospital mortality, length of stay, acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, and need for extracorporeal life support. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were identified and 66 (24.3%) of these patients received iNO via HFNC for a median of 88â h (interquartile range: 44, 135). After 12â h of iNO, supplemental oxygen requirement was unchanged or increased in 52.7% of patients. Twenty-nine (43.9%) patients treated with iNO compared to 79 (38.3%) patients without iNO therapy required endotracheal intubation (P = .47). After multivariable adjustment, there was no difference in need for mechanical ventilation between groups (odds ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-3.17), however, iNO administration was associated with longer hospital length of stay (incidence rate ratio: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.31-1.51). No difference was found for mortality, acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, or need for extracorporeal life support. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure, iNO delivered via HFNC did not reduce oxygen requirements in the majority of patients or improve clinical outcomes. Given the observed association with increased length of stay, judicious selection of those likely to benefit from this therapy is warranted.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 is uncertain. We sought to evaluate outcomes of delayed intubation and examine the ROX index (ie, [[Formula: see text]]/breathing frequency) to predict weaning from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of subjects with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and managed with HFNC. The ROX index was applied to predict HFNC success. Subjects that failed HFNC were divided into early HFNC failure (≤ 48 h of HFNC therapy prior to mechanical ventilation) and late failure (> 48 h). Standard statistical comparisons and regression analyses were used to compare overall hospital mortality and secondary end points, including time-specific mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and ICU length of stay between early and late failure groups. RESULTS: 272 subjects with COVID-19 were managed with HFNC. One hundred sixty-four (60.3%) were successfully weaned from HFNC, and 111 (67.7%) of those weaned were managed solely in non-ICU settings. ROX index >3.0 at 2, 6, and 12 hours after initiation of HFNC was 85.3% sensitive for identifying subsequent HFNC success. One hundred eight subjects were intubated for failure of HFNC (61 early failures and 47 late failures). Mortality after HFNC failure was high (45.4%). There was no statistical difference in hospital mortality (39.3% vs 53.2%, P = .18) or any of the secondary end points between early and late HFNC failure groups. This remained true even when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review, HFNC was a viable strategy and mechanical ventilation was unecessary in the majority of subjects. In the minority that progressed to mechanical ventilation, duration of HFNC did not differentiate subjects with worse clinical outcomes. The ROX index was sensitive for the identification of subjects successfully weaned from HFNC. Prospective studies in COVID-19 are warranted to confirm these findings and to optimize patient selection for use of HFNC in this disease.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Cannula , Humans , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: D-dimer concentration has been used by institutions to identify candidates for intensified anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism prevention and for the mitigation of the microthrombotic complications associated with COVID-19. Thromboelastography (TEG) maximum amplitude (MA) has been validated as a marker of hypercoagulability and MA ≥68 mm has been utilized as a marker of hypercoagulability in other conditions. METHODS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the relationship between coagulation, inflammatory, and TEG parameters in patients with COVID-19 on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients that received ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19. TEG, inflammatory, and coagulation markers were compared in patients with and without a thrombotic complication. Correlation tests were performed to identify the coagulation and inflammatory markers that best predict hypercoagulability as defined by an elevated TEG MA. RESULTS: A total of 168 TEGs were available in 24 patients. C-reactive protein and fibrinogen were significantly higher in patients that developed a thrombotic event versus those that did not (P = 0.04 and P = 0.04 respectively). D-dimer was negatively correlated with TEG MA (P < 0.01), while fibrinogen was positively correlated (P < 0.01). A fibrinogen >441 mg/dL was found to have a sensitivity of 91.2% and specificity of 85.7% for the detection of MA ≥68 mm. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated with ECMO, D-dimer concentration had an inverse relationship with degree of hypercoagulability as measured by TEG MA. D-dimer elevation may potentially reflect hemostatic perturbation in patients on ECMO or the severity of COVID-19 related sepsis rather than designate patients likely to benefit from anticoagulation. Fibrinogen concentration may represent a more useful marker of hypercoagulability in this population.