A Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Managed With Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the First and Second Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: Early studies of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19 have revealed similar outcomes to historical cohorts. Changes in the disease and treatments have led to differences in the patients supported on venovenous ECMO in the first and second waves. We aimed to compare these two groups in both the acute and follow-up phase. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center cohort study comparing mortality at censoring date (November 30, 2021) and decannulation, patient characteristics, complications and lung function and quality of life (QOL-by European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version) at first follow-up in patients supported on venovenous ECMO between wave 1 and wave 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Critical care department of a severe acute respiratory failure service. PATIENTS: Patients supported on ECMO for COVID-19 between wave 1 (March 17, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and wave 2 (January 9, 2020, to May 25, 2021). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were included in our analysis. Survival at censoring date (χ 2 , 6.35; p = 0.012) and decannulation (90.4% vs 70.0%; p < 0.001) was significantly lower in the second wave, while duration of ECMO run was longer (12.0 d [18.0-30.0 d] vs 29.5 d [15.5-58.3 d]; p = 0.005). Wave 2 patients had longer application of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) prior to ECMO and a higher frequency of barotrauma. Patient age and NIV use were independently associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.07 [1.01-1.14]; p = 0.025 and 3.37 [1.12-12.60]; p = 0.043, respectively). QOL and lung function apart from transfer coefficient of carbon monoxide corrected for hemoglobin was similar at follow-up across the waves. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with COVID-19 supported on ECMO in both waves survived in the short and longer term. At follow-up patients had similar lung function and QOL across the two waves. This suggests that ECMO has an ongoing role in the management of a carefully selected group of patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19 in patients with pulmonary alveolar proteinosis: a European multicentre study.

Adult PAP patients experience similar #COVID19 rates to the general population, and high rates of hospitalisation and deaths, underscoring their vulnerability and the need for measures to prevent infection. The impact of iGM-CSF must be considered. https://bit.ly/3M0wKnZ.

COVID-19 in patients with Pulmonary Alveolar Proteinosis A European multicenter study

Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factor (GM-CSF) signaling is essential in both alveolar macrophages (AMs) differentiation and activation of lung immune cells [1]. Differentiated AMs are crucial in both the elimination of alveolar microbes and surfactant clearance. The disruption of the GM-CSF axis in alveolar macrophages leads to the development of pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP) [1]. In the majority of patients this relates to the presence of autoantibodies against GM-CSF autoimmune (a)PAP but there are multiple other causes [1, 2, 3]. GM-CSF deficient animals may have impaired lung inflammatory response to commensal microbes and humans with PAP may occasionally develop opportunistic lung infections [4]. The mainstay of pharmacological treatment in aPAP is inhaled GM-CSF which is off-label but increasingly used worldwide [5, 6, 7, 8, 9].

A comparison of long term outcomes in patients managed with VV-ECMO in the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (preprint)

Background: Early studies of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in COVID-19 have revealed similar outcomes to historical cohorts. Changes in the disease and treatments has led to differences in the patients supported on VV-ECMO in the 1 st and 2 nd waves. We aimed to compare these two groups in both the acute and follow-up phase. Methods: In this retrospective study, we identified the differences between patients supported on ECMO for COVID-19 between wave 1 (17/03/2020-31/08/2020) and wave 2 (01/09/2020-25/05/2021). We examined mortality at censoring date (30/11/2021) and decannulation, patient characteristics, complications and lung function and quality of life (QOL – by EQ5D3L) at first follow-up. Findings: One-hundred and twenty-three patients were included in our analysis. Survival at censoring date [Chi-sqaured 6.35, p=0.012] and decannulation [90.4% vs 70.0%, p<0.001], was significantly lower in the 2 nd wave, whilst duration of ECMO run was longer [12.0(18.0-30.0) days vs. 29.5(15.5-58.3)] days (p=0.005)). Wave 2 patients had longer application of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) prior to ECMO and a higher incidence of barotrauma. Patient age and NIV use were independently associated with increased mortality [OR 1.07(1.01-1.14), p=0.025 and 3.37(1.12–12.60), p=0.043 respectively]. QOL and lung function, apart from KCOc was similar at follow up across the waves. Conclusion: Most patients with COVID-19 supported on ECMO in both waves survived in the short and longer term. At follow-up patients had similar lung function and QOL across the 2 waves. This suggests that ECMO has an ongoing role in the management of a carefully selected group of patients with COVID-19. Trial Registration Research Ethics Committee (20/EM/0204)

Outcome of Hospitalization for COVID-19 in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease. An International Multicenter Study.

Rationale: The impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) has not been established.Objectives: To assess outcomes in patients with ILD hospitalized for COVID-19 versus those without ILD in a contemporaneous age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched population.Methods: An international multicenter audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 between March 1 and May 1, 2020, was undertaken and compared with patients without ILD, obtained from the ISARIC4C (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis from non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death.Measurements and Main Results: Data from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to the hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching, patients with ILD with COVID-19 had significantly poorer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; confidence interval, 1.17-2.18; P = 0.003) than age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched controls without ILD. Patients with an FVC of <80% had an increased risk of death versus patients with FVC ≥80% (HR, 1.72; 1.05-2.83). Furthermore, obese patients with ILD had an elevated risk of death (HR, 2.27; 1.39-3.71).Conclusions: Patients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD.