Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Heart Transplantation: Single Center Experience and Review of the Literature.

COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic in March 2020, and since then it has had a significant impact on healthcare including on solid-organ transplantation. Based on age, immunosuppression and prevalence of chronic comorbidities, heart transplant recipients are at high risk of adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19. In our center, 31 heart transplant patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March 2020 to September 2021. They required: hospitalization (39%), intensive care (10%) and mechanical ventilation (6%) of patients with overall short-term mortality of 3%. Early outpatient use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies in our heart transplant recipients was associated with a reduction in the risk of hospitalization, need for intensive care, and death related to COVID-19. In prior multicenter studies, completed in different geographic areas and pandemic timeframes, diverse rates of hospitalization (38-91%), mechanical ventilation (4-38%) and death (16-33%) have been reported. Progression of disease and adverse outcomes were most significantly associated with severity of lymphopenia, chronic co-morbid conditions like older age, chronic allograft vasculopathy, increased body mass index as well as intensity of baseline immune-suppression. In this article, we also review the current roles and limitations of vaccination, anti-viral agents, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies in the management of heart transplant recipients. Our single center experience, considered together with other studies indicates a trend toward improved outcomes among heart transplant patients with COVID-19.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 compared to other etiologies of acute respiratory failure: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a boom in the use of V-V ECMO for ARDS secondary to COVID. Comparisons of outcomes of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for influenza have emerged. Very few comparisons of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for ARDS of all etiologies are available. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinically important outcome measures in recipients of ECMO for COVID to those observed in recipients of ECMO for ARDS of other etiologies. METHODS: V-V ECMO recipients between March 2020 and March 2022 consisted exclusively of COVID patients and formed the COVID ECMO group. All patients who underwent V-V ECMO for ARDS between January 2014 and March 2020 were eligible for analysis as the non-COVID ECMO comparator group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included ECMO decannulation, ECMO duration >30 days, and serious complications. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients comprised the COVID ECMO group and were compared to 18 non-COVID ECMO patients. Survival to hospital discharge was not significantly different between the two groups (33% in COVID vs. 50% in non-COVID; p = 0.255) nor was there a significant difference in the rate of non-palliative ECMO decannulation. The proportion of patients connected to ECMO for >30 days was significantly higher in the COVID ECMO group: 69% vs. 17%; p = 0.001. There was no significant difference in serious complications. CONCLUSION: This study could not identify a statistically significant difference in hospital survival and rate of successful ECMO decannulation between COVID ECMO and non-COVID ECMO patients. Prolonged ECMO may be more common in COVID. Complications were not significantly different.

Comparison of pulse-dose and high-dose corticosteroids with no corticosteroid treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia in the intensive care unit.

Corticosteroid dosing in the range of 0.5-2 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone equivalents has become a standard part of the management of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 pneumonia based on positive results of randomized trials and a meta-analysis. Alongside such conventional dosing, administration of 1 gm of methylprednisolone daily (pulse dosing) has also been reported in the literature with claims of favorable outcomes. Comparisons between such disparate approaches to corticosteroids for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia are lacking. In this retrospective study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 pneumonia, we compared patients treated with 0.5-2 mg/kg/day in methylprednisolone equivalents (high-dose corticosteroids) and patients treated with 1 gm of methylprednisolone (pulse-dose corticosteroids) to those who did not receive any corticosteroids. The endpoints of interest were hospital mortality, ICU-free days at Day 28, and complications potentially attributable to corticosteroids. Pulse-dose corticosteroid therapy was associated with a significant increase in ICU-free days at Day 28 compared to no receipt: adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-2.02; p = 0.03) and compared with high-dose corticosteroid administration (p = 0.003). Nonetheless, receipt of high-dose corticosteroids-but not of pulse-dose corticosteroids-significantly reduced the odds of hospital mortality compared to no receipt: adjusted Odds ratio (aOR) 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12-0.77; p = 0.01). High-dose corticosteroids reduced mortality compared to pulse-dose corticosteroids (p = 0.04). Pulse-dose corticosteroids-but not high-dose corticosteroids-significantly increased the odds of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy compared to no receipt: aOR 3.53 (95% CI: 1.27-9.82; p = 0.02). The odds of this complication were also significantly higher in the pulse-dose group when compared to the high-dose group (p = 0.05 for the comparison). In this single-center study, pulse-dose corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia in the ICU was associated with an increase in ICU-free days but failed to impact hospital mortality, perhaps because of its association with development of severe renal failure. In line with existing trial data, the effect of high-dose corticosteroids on mortality was favorable.

Public Interest in Elective Urological Procedures in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Google Trends Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to characterize public interest in elective urological procedures amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and specifically after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the American Urological Association recommended cessation of all nonessential procedures. METHODS: We extracted relative search volumes from Google Trends™ (January 2015 to May 2020) for keywords related to the 4 procedure categories of male infertility, erectile dysfunction, Peyronie's disease and vasectomy. The most popular keywords in each category were used to assess immediate (30 days preceding and following official recommendation from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on March 18, 2020) and long-term (January 1, 2015 to March 18, 2020 vs March 19, 2020 to May 21, 2020) shifts in public interest. Lastly, we assessed geographical variations in public interest during the phase I reopening period from April 24 to May 31, 2020. RESULTS: There was an immediate reduction in interest across all 4 categories following the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recommendation. Long-term post-announcement relative search volume was lower than pre-announcement relative search volume in all categories as well, namely male infertility (54.33% vs 68.74%, p=0.02), erectile dysfunction (45.00% vs 76.74%, p <0.0001), Peyronie's disease (48.33% vs 77.95%, p <0.0001) and vasectomy (51.33% vs 66.73%, p=0.0005). During the phase I reopening period the relative search volume for vasectomy was higher in states that reopened early than in states that reopened late (60.29% vs 50.52%, p=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Public interest in elective urological procedures decreased following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Interest rebounded in May, seemingly driven by states that lifted their stay-at-home order earlier than others.