Rising Mortality in Coronavirus-19 Patients Supported With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

We aimed to describe practice patterns and outcomes in patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support throughout the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with the hypothesis that mortality would improve as we accumulated knowledge and experience. We included 48 patients supported on veno-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO) at a single institution between April 2020 and December 2021. Patients were categorized into three waves based on cannulation date, corresponding to the wild-type (wave 1), alpha (wave 2), and delta (wave 3) variants. One hundred percent of patients in waves 2 and 3 received glucocorticoids, compared with 29% in wave 1 ( p < 0.01), and the majority received remdesivir (84% and 92% in waves 2 and 3, vs . 35% in wave 1; p < 0.01). Duration of pre-ECMO noninvasive ventilation was longer in waves 2 and 3 (mean 8.8 days and 3.9 days, vs . 0.7 days in wave 1; p < 0.01), as was time to cannulation (mean 17.2 and 14.6 days vs . 8.8 days in wave 1; p < 0.01) and ECMO duration (mean 55.7 days and 43.0 days vs . 28.4 days in wave 1; p = 0.02). Mortality in wave 1 was 35%, compared with 63% and 75% in waves 2 and 3 ( p = 0.05). These results suggest an increased prevalence of medically refractory disease and rising mortality in later variants of COVID-19.

Worse survival in patients with right ventricular dysfunction and COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A multicenter study from the ORACLE Group.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the impact of right ventricular dysfunction on the outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. METHODS: Six academic centers conducted a retrospective analysis of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 stratified by support with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first wave of the pandemic (March to August 2020). Echocardiograms performed for clinical indications were reviewed for right and left ventricular function. Baseline characteristics, hospitalization characteristics, and survival were compared. RESULTS: The cohort included 424 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, 126 of whom were cannulated for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Right ventricular dysfunction was observed in 38.1% of patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and 27.4% of patients who did not receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with an echocardiogram. Biventricular dysfunction was observed in 5.5% of patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and non-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cohorts stratified by the presence of right ventricular dysfunction. In the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cohort, right ventricular dysfunction was associated with increased inotrope use (66.7% vs 24.4%, P < .001), bleeding complications (77.1% vs 53.8%, P = .015), and worse survival independent of left ventricular dysfunction (39.6% vs 64.1%, P = .012). There was no significant difference in days ventilated before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, hours on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, duration of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, inhaled pulmonary vasodilator use, infectious complications, clotting complications, or stroke. The cohort without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cohort demonstrated no statistically significant differences in in-hospital outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of right ventricular dysfunction in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Additional studies are required to determine if mitigating right ventricular dysfunction in patients requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation improves mortality.

Lung Transplantation in Patients With COVID-19-The Early National Experience.

Lung transplant (LT) has become a viable option for COVID-19 patients suffering from end-stage Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). This analysis sought to describe the early national experience of COVID-19 patients who received LT and compare transplant characteristics and short-term outcomes of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS LT recipients. We queried the Organ Procurement and Transplantation database for adults (≥18 years old) receiving LT from January 2009 to March 31, 2022 with diagnoses of COVID-19 or ARDS. We identified 353 COVID-19 and 64 non-COVID-19 ARDS LT recipients. COVID-19 recipients were older (median age: 51, interquartile range [40-57] years vs 41 [26-52]; P < 0.001), more predominantly male (78% (n = 274) vs 55% (n = 35), P < 0.001), and had higher body mass indices (median 27.2 interquartile range [24.5-30.9] vs 25.4 [22.1-28.6]; P < 0.01) than non-COVID-19 ARDS recipients. COVID-19 LT recipients were less frequently reliant on extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation at 72 hours after transplant (26% (n = 80) vs 31% (n = 15), P < 0.001), and were less frequently dependent on dialysis post-transplant than non-COVID-19 ARDS LT recipients (14% (n = 43) vs 23% (n = 14); P = 0.01). Survival at 90 days post-transplant was comparable for the non-COVID ARDS (90%, n = 54) and COVID-19 (94%, n = 202) LT recipients with available follow-up (P = 0.17). LT appears to be a viable therapy for COVID-19 patients with end-stage lung disease. COVID-19 LT and non-COVID-19 ARDS LT recipients have comparable 90 days post-transplant survival.

Neurological Complications in COVID-19 Patients With ECMO Support: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory disease (ARDS) increasingly receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. While ECMO has been shown to increase risk of stroke, few studies have examined this association in COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to characterise neurological events during ECMO support in COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Systematic review of cohort and large case series of COVID-19 patients who received ECMO support. DATA SOURCES: Studies retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRχiv from inception to November 11, 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were a) Adult population (>18 year old); b) Positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 with active COVID-19 disease; c) ECMO therapy due to COVID-19 ARDS; and d) Neurological events and outcome described while on ECMO support. We excluded articles when no details of neurologic events were available. RESULTS: 1,322 patients from 12 case series and retrospective cohort studies were included in our study. The median age was 49.2, and 75% (n=985) of the patients were male. Diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia were the most common comorbidities (24% and 20%, respectively). Most (95%, n=1,241) patients were on venovenous ECMO with a median P:F ratio at the time of ECMO cannulation of 69.1. The prevalence of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), ischaemic stroke, and hypoxic ischaemic brain injury (HIBI) was 5.9% (n=78), 1.1% (n=15), and 0.3% (n=4), respectively. The overall mortality of the 1,296 ECMO patients in the 10 studies that reported death was 36% (n=477), and the mortality of the subset of patients who had a neurological event was 92%. CONCLUSIONS: Neurological injury is a concern for COVID-19 patients who receive ECMO. Further research is required to explore how neuromonitoring protocols can inform tailored anticoagulation management and improve survival in COVID-19 patients with ECMO support.

Early posthospitalization recovery after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in survivors of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the influence of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 during the first 120 days after hospital discharge. METHODS: Five academic centers conducted a retrospective analysis of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 admitted during March through May 2020. Survivors had access to a multidisciplinary postintensive care recovery clinic. Physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits were measured using validated instruments and compared based on ECMO status. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty two mechanically ventilated patients were compared with 46 patients cannulated for venovenous ECMO. Patients receiving ECMO were younger and traveled farther but there was no significant difference in gender, race, or body mass index. ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days [interquartile range, 19.5-41 days] vs 13 days [interquartile range, 7-20 days]) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes. Patients receiving ECMO experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01). However, survival at discharge was similar (69.6% vs 70.6%). Of the 217 survivors, 65.0% had documented follow-up within 120 days. Overall, 95.5% were residing at home, 25.7% had returned to work or usual activity, and 23.1% were still using supplemental oxygen; these rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status. Rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that COVID-19 survivors experience significant physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits following intensive care unit admission. Despite a more complex critical illness course, longer average duration of mechanical ventilation, and longer average length of stay, patients treated with venovenous ECMO had similar survival at discharge and outcomes within 120 days of discharge.

Bridge to transplantation from mechanical circulatory support: a narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To highlight recent developments in the utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies and to discuss trends in MCS use following the changes to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system. BACKGROUND: MCS devices have played an increasingly important role in the treatment of heart failure patients. Over the past several years, technological advancements have led to new developments in MCS devices and expanding indications for MCS use. In October of 2018, the UNOS heart allocation policy was revised to prioritize higher-urgency patients, including those supported with temporary MCS devices. Since then, changes in trends of MCS utilization have been observed. METHODS: Articles from the PubMed database regarding the use of MCS devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies were reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past decade, utilization of temporary MCS devices, which include the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), has become increasingly common. Recent advancements in MCS include the development of pVADs that can fully unload the left ventricle (LV) as well as devices designed to provide right-sided support. Technological advancements in durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have also led to improved outcomes both on the device and following heart transplantation. Following the 2018 UNOS heart allocation policy revision, the utilization of temporary MCS in advanced heart failure patients has further increased and the proportion of patients bridged directly from a temporary MCS device has exponentially risen. However, following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trends have reversed, with a decrease in the percentage of patients bridged from a temporary MCS device. As long-term data following the allocation policy revision becomes available, future studies should investigate how trends in MCS use for patients with advanced heart failure continue to evolve.

The Surge After the Surge: Cardiac Surgery Post-COVID-19.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically reduced adult cardiac surgery case volumes as institutions and surgeons curtail nonurgent operations. There will be a progressive increase in deferred cases during the pandemic that will require completion within a limited time frame once restrictions ease. We investigated the impact of various levels of increased postpandemic hospital operating capacity on the time to clear the backlog of deferred cases. Methods: We collected data from 4 cardiac surgery programs across 2 health systems. We recorded case rates at baseline and during the COVID-19 pandemic and created a mathematical model to quantify the cumulative surgical backlog based on the projected pandemic duration. We then used the model to predict the time required to clear the backlog depending on the level of increased operating capacity. Results: Cardiac surgery volumes fell to 54% of baseline after restrictions were implemented. Assuming a service restoration date of either June 1 or July 1, we calculated the need to perform 216% or 263% of monthly baseline volume, respectively, to clear the backlog in 1 month. The actual duration required to clear the backlog highly depends on hospital capacity in the post-COVID period, and ranges from 1 to 8 months, depending on when services are restored and the degree of increased capacity. Conclusions: Cardiac surgical operating capacity during the COVID-19 recovery period will have a dramatic impact on the time to clear the deferred cases backlog. Inadequate operating capacity may cause substantial delays and increase morbidity and mortality. If only prepandemic capacity is available, the backlog will never clear.