Variation in survival in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A multi-institutional analysis of 594 consecutive patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 49 hospitals within 21 states.

OBJECTIVES: We reviewed 594 consecutive patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 49 hospitals within 21 states and examined patient characteristics, treatments, and variation in outcomes over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: A multi-institutional database was used to assess all patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with and separated from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between March 2020 and December 2021, inclusive. Descriptive analysis was stratified by 4 time categories: group A = March 2020 to June 2020, group B = July 2020 to December 2020, group C = January 2021 to June 2021, group D = July 2021 to December 2021. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression was used to assess continuous trends in survival where time was operationalized as the number of days between each patient's cannulation and that of the first patient in March 2020, controlling for multiple variables and risk factors. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, of 594 patients, 221 survived (37.2%) and 373 died. Throughout the study, median age [interquartile range] declined (group A = 51.0 [41.0-60.0] years, group D = 39.0 [32.0-48.0] years, P < .001); median days between Coronavirus Disease 2019 diagnosis and intubation increased (group A = 4.0 [1.0-8.5], group D = 9.0 [5.0-14.5], P < .001); and use of medications (glucocorticoids, interleukin-6 blockers, antivirals, antimalarials) and convalescent plasma fluctuated significantly (all P < .05). Estimated odds of survival varied over the study period with a decline between April 1, 2020, and November 21, 2020 (odds ratio, 0.39, 95% credible interval, 0.18-0.87, probability of reduction in survival = 95.7%), improvement between November 21, 2020, and May 17, 2021 (odds ratio, 1.85, 95% credible interval, 0.86-4.09, probability of improvement = 93.4%), and decline between May 17, 2021, and December 1, 2021 (odds ratio, 0.49, 95% credible interval, 0.19-1.44, probability of decrease = 92.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Survival for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has fluctuated during the stages of the pandemic. Minimizing variability by adherence to best practices may refine the optimal use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a pandemic response.

ECMO During COVID-19: A Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Survey.

Background: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Workforce on Critical Care and the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization sought to identify how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the practice of venoarterial (VA) and venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) programs across North America. Methods: A 26-question survey covering 6 categories (ECMO initiation, cannulation, management, anticoagulation, triage/protocols, and credentialing) was emailed to 276 North American Extracorporeal Life Support Organization centers. ECMO practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared. Results: Responses were received from 93 (34%) programs. The percentage of high-volume (>20 cases per year) VV ECMO programs increased during the pandemic from 29% to 41% (P < .001), as did institutions requiring multiple clinicians for determining initiation of ECMO (VV ECMO, 25% to 43% [P = .001]; VA ECMO, 20% to 32% [P = .012]). During the pandemic, more institutions developed their own protocols for resource allocation (23% before to 51%; P < .001), and more programs created sharing arrangements to triage patients and equipment with other centers (31% to 57%; P < .001). Direct thrombin inhibitor use increased for both VA ECMO (13% to 18%; P = .025) and VV ECMO (12% to 24%; P = .005). Although cardiothoracic surgeons remained the primary cannulating proceduralists, VV ECMO cannulations performed by pulmonary and critical care physicians increased (13% to 17%; P = .046). Conclusions: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Extracorporeal Life Support Organization collaborative survey indicated that the pandemic has affected ECMO practice. Further research on these ECMO strategies and lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic may be useful in future global situations.

The Association of Baseline Plasma SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Level and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Levels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge. SETTING: 114 centers in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Plasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity. LIMITATIONS: Plasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available. CONCLUSION: Elevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

2021: Perioperative and critical care year in review for the cardiothoracic surgery team.

For yet another year, our lives have been dominated by a pandemic. This year in review, we feature an expert panel opinion regarding extracorporeal support in the context of COVID-19, challenging previously held standards. We also feature survey results assessing the impact of the pandemic on cardiac surgical volume. Furthermore, we focus on a single center experience that evaluated the use of pulmonary artery catheters and the comparison of transfusion strategies in the Restrictive and Liberal Transfusion Strategies in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction (REALITY) trial. Additionally, we address the impact of acute kidney injury on cardiac surgery and highlight the controversy regarding the choice of fluid resuscitation. We close with an evaluation of dysphagia in cardiac surgery and the impact of prehabilitation to optimize surgical outcomes.

Multi-institutional Analysis of 505 Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019 Supported With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Predictors of Survival.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed our experience with 505 patients with confirmed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at 45 hospitals and estimated risk factors for mortality. METHODS: A multi-institutional database was created and used to assess all patients with COVID-19 who were supported with ECMO. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression model was estimated to assess the effect on survival of multiple potential risk factors for mortality, including age at cannulation for ECMO as well as days between diagnosis of COVID-19 and intubation and days between intubation and cannulation for ECMO. RESULTS: Median time on ECMO was 18 days (interquartile range, 10-29 days). All 505 patients separated from ECMO: 194 patients (38.4%) survived and 311 patients (61.6%) died. Survival with venovenous ECMO was 184 of 466 patients (39.5%), and survival with venoarterial ECMO was 8 of 30 patients (26.7%). Survivors had lower median age (44 vs 51 years, P < .001) and shorter median time interval from diagnosis to intubation (7 vs 11 days, P = .001). Adjusting for several confounding factors, we estimated that an ECMO patient intubated on day 14 after the diagnosis of COVID-19 vs day 4 had a relative odds of survival of 0.65 (95% credible interval, 0.44-0.96; posterior probability of negative effect, 98.5%). Age was also negatively associated with survival: relative to a 38-year-old patient, we estimated that a 57-year-old patient had a relative odds of survival of 0.43 (95% credible interval, 0.30-0.61; posterior probability of negative effect, >99.99%). CONCLUSIONS: ECMO facilitates salvage and survival of select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Survivors tend to be younger and have shorter time from diagnosis to intubation. Survival of patients supported with only venovenous ECMO was 39.5%.

Cannulate, extubate, ambulate approach for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We compared outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) managed using a dynamic, goal-driven approach to venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of our institutional ECMO registry using data from 2017 to 2021. We used Kaplan-Meier plots, Cox proportional hazard models, and propensity score analyses to evaluate the association of COVID-19 status (COVID-19-related ARDS vs non-COVID-19 ARDS) and survival to decannulation, discharge, tracheostomy, and extubation. We also conducted subgroup analyses to compare outcomes with the use of extracorporeal cytoreductive techniques (CytoSorb [CytoSorbents Corp] and plasmapheresis). RESULTS: The sample comprised 128 patients, 50 with COVID-19 and 78 with non-COVID-19 ARDS. Advancing age was associated with decreased probability of survival to decannulation (P = .04). Compared with the non-COVID-19 ARDS group, patients with COVID-19 had a greater probability of survival to extubation (P < .01) and comparable survival to discharge (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 managed with ECMO had comparable outcomes as patients with non-COVID ARDS. A strategy of early extubation and ambulation might be a safe and effective strategy to improve outcomes and survival, even for patients with severe COVID-19.

Multi-institutional Analysis of 200 COVID-19 Patients Treated With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Outcomes and Trends.

BACKGROUND: The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of patients with COVID-19 continues to evolve. The purpose of this analysis is to review our multi-institutional clinical experience involving 200 consecutive patients at 29 hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 supported with ECMO. METHODS: This analysis includes our first 200 COVID-19 patients with complete data who were supported with and separated from ECMO. These patients were cannulated between March 17 and December 1, 2020. Differences by mortality group were assessed using χ2 tests for categoric variables and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests and Welch's analysis of variance for continuous variables. RESULTS: Median ECMO time was 15 days (interquartile range, 9 to 28). All 200 patients have separated from ECMO: 90 patients (45%) survived and 110 patients (55%) died. Survival with venovenous ECMO was 87 of 188 patients (46.3%), whereas survival with venoarterial ECMO was 3 of 12 patients (25%). Of 90 survivors, 77 have been discharged from the hospital and 13 remain hospitalized at the ECMO-providing hospital. Survivors had lower median age (47 versus 56 years, P < .001) and shorter median time from diagnosis to ECMO cannulation (8 versus 12 days, P = .003). For the 90 survivors, adjunctive therapies on ECMO included intravenous steroids (64), remdesivir (49), convalescent plasma (43), anti-interleukin-6 receptor blockers (39), prostaglandin (33), and hydroxychloroquine (22). CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation facilitates survival of select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Survivors tend to be younger and have a shorter duration from diagnosis to cannulation. Substantial variation exists in drug treatment of COVID-19, but ECMO offers a reasonable rescue strategy.

Outcome and Cost of Nurse-Led vs Perfusionist-led Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a resource-intense modality of care whose use has grown exponentially. We examined volume and utilization trends to identify the financial break-even point that might serve to dichotomize between nurse specialist-led and perfusionist-led ECMO programs. METHODS: Data pertaining to patients who required ECMO support between 2018 and 2019 were reviewed. ECMO staffing costs were estimated based on national trends and modeled by annual utilization and case volume. A break-even point was derived from a comparison between nurse specialist-led and perfusionist-led models. For each scenario, direct medical costs were calculated based on utilization, which was in turn defined by "low" (4 days), "average" (10 days), and "high" (30 days) duration of time spent on ECMO. RESULTS: Within the study time frame, there was a total of 107 ECMO cases with a mean ECMO duration of 11 days. Overall, ECMO nursing personnel costs were less than those for perfusionists ($108,000 vs $175,000). Programmatic costs were higher in the perfusionist-led vs nurse specialist-led model when annual utilization was greater than 10 cases and ECMO duration was longer than a mean of 9.7 days. There was no difference in survival between the 2 models. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a perfusionist-led ECMO model may be more cost-conscious in the context of low utilization, smaller case volume and shorter ECMO duration. However, once annual case volume exceeds 10 and mean ECMO duration exceeds 10 days, the nurse specialist-led model may be more cost-conscious.

Multi-institutional Analysis of 100 Consecutive Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Pulmonary Compromise Treated with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Outcomes and Trends Over Time.

The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to evolve. The purpose of this study is to review a multi-institutional clinical experience in 100 consecutive patients, at 20 hospitals, with confirmed COVID-19 supported with ECMO. This analysis includes our first 100 patients with complete data who had confirmed COVID-19 and were supported with ECMO. The first patient in the cohort was placed on ECMO on March 17, 2020. Differences by the mortality group were assessed using χ2 tests for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum tests and Welch's analysis of variance for continuous variables. The median time on ECMO was 12.0 days (IQR = 8-22 days). All 100 patients have since been separated from ECMO: 50 patients survived and 50 patients died. The rate of survival with veno-venous ECMO was 49 of 96 patients (51%), whereas that with veno-arterial ECMO was 1 of 4 patients (25%). Of 50 survivors, 49 have been discharged from the hospital and 1 remains hospitalized at the ECMO-providing hospital. Survivors were generally younger, with a lower median age (47 versus 56.5 years, p = 0.014). In the 50 surviving patients, adjunctive therapies while on ECMO included intravenous steroids (26), anti-interleukin-6 receptor blockers (26), convalescent plasma (22), remdesivir (21), hydroxychloroquine (20), and prostaglandin (15). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may facilitate salvage and survival of selected critically ill patients with COVID-19. Survivors tend to be younger. Substantial variation exists in the drug treatment of COVID-19, but ECMO offers a reasonable rescue strategy.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Treatment of Severe Pulmonary and Cardiac Compromise in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Experience with 32 Patients.

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases surge worldwide, an urgent need exists to enhance our understanding of the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of severely ill patients with COVID-19 who develop acute respiratory and cardiac compromise refractory to conventional therapy. The purpose of this manuscript is to review our initial clinical experience in 32 patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated with ECMO. A multi-institutional registry and database was created and utilized to assess all patients who were supported with ECMO provided by SpecialtyCare. Data captured included patient characteristics, pre-COVID-19 risk factors and comorbidities, confirmation of COVID-19 diagnosis, features of ECMO support, specific medications utilized to treat COVID-19, and short-term outcomes through hospital discharge. This analysis includes all of our patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO, with an analytic window starting March 17, 2020, when our first COVID-19 patient was placed on ECMO, and ending April 9, 2020. During the 24 days of this study, 32 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were placed on ECMO at nine different hospitals. As of the time of analysis, 17 remain on ECMO, 10 died before or shortly after decannulation, and five are alive and extubated after removal from ECMO, with one of these five discharged from the hospital. Adjunctive medication in the surviving patients while on ECMO was as follows: four of five survivors received intravenous steroids, three of five survivors received antiviral medications (Remdesivir), two of five survivors were treated with anti-interleukin-6-receptor monoclonal antibodies (Tocilizumab or Sarilumab), and one of five survivors received hydroxychloroquine. Analysis of these 32 COVID-19 patients with severe pulmonary compromise supported with ECMO suggests that ECMO may play a useful role in salvaging select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Additional patient experience and associated clinical and laboratory data must be obtained to further define the optimal role of ECMO in patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). These initial data may provide useful information to help define the best strategies to care for these challenging patients and may also provide a framework for much-needed future research about the use of ECMO to treat patients with COVID-19.