The Interplay of Inflammation and Coagulation in COVID-19 Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support.

OBJECTIVE: Bleeding and thrombosis are common complications during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) support for COVID-19 patients. We sought to examine the relationship between inflammatory status, coagulation effects, and observed bleeding and thrombosis in patients receiving venovenous (VV) ECMO for COVID-19 respiratory failure. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTINGS: Quaternary care institution. PATIENTS: The study period from April 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021, we included all patients with confirmed COVID-19 who received VV ECMO support. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were supported with VV ECMO during the study period, and 17 patients (53%) survived to hospital discharge. The ECMO nonsurvivors mean lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were markedly elevated in comparison to survivors (1046 u/L [IQR = 509, 1305] vs 489 u/L [385 658], p = 0.003). Platelet/fibrinogen dysfunction, as reflected by the low Maximum Amplitude (MA) on viscoelastic testing, was worse in nonsurvivors (65.25 mm [60.68, 67.67] vs 74.80 mm [73.10, 78.40], p = 0.01). Time-group interaction for the first seven days of ECMO support, showed significantly lower platelet count in the nonsurvivors (140 k/ul [103, 170] vs 189.5 k/ul [ 146, 315], p < 0.001) and higher D-dimer in (21 µg/mL [13, 21] vs 14 µg/mL [3, 21], p < 0.001) in comparison to the survivors. Finally, we found profound statistically significant correlations between the clinical markers of inflammation and markers of coagulation in the nonsurvivors group. The ECMO nonsurvivors experienced higher rate of bleeding (73.3% vs 35.3%, p = 0.03), digital ischemia (46.7% vs 11.8%, p = 0.02), acute renal failure (60% vs 11.8%, p = 0.01) and bloodstream infection (60% vs 23.5%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The correlation between inflammation and coagulation in the nonsurvivors supported with VV ECMO could indicate dysregulated inflammatory response and worse clinical outcomes.

Effects of Body Mass Index on Presentation and Outcomes of COVID-19 among Heart Transplant and Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients: A Multi-Institutional Study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to pose a significant threat to patients receiving advanced heart failure therapies. The current study was undertaken to better understand the relationship between obesity and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplant. We performed a retrospective review of patients with a heart transplant or LVAD who presented to one of the participating 11 institutions between April 1 and November 30, 2020. Patients were grouped by body mass index (BMI) into obese (BMI ≥ 30 k/m2) and nonobese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m2). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate effects of obesity on outcomes of interest. Across all centers, 162 heart transplant and 81 LVAD patients were identified; 54 (33%) and 38 (47%) were obese, respectively. Obese patients tended to have more symptoms at presentation. No differences in rates of hospitalization or ICU admission were noted. Obese patients with LVADs were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (39% vs. 8%, p < 0.05). No differences in renal failure or secondary infection were noted. Mortality was similar among heart transplant patients (11% [obese] vs. 16% [nonobese], p = 0.628) and LVAD patients (12% vs. 15%, p = 1.0). BMI was not associated with increased adjusted odds of mortality, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation (all p > 0.10). In summary, acute presentations of SARS-CoV-2 among heart transplant and LVAD recipients carry a significantly higher mortality than the general population, although BMI does not appear to impact this. Further studies on the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on this population are warranted.

Coronavirus disease 2019 in heart transplant recipients: Risk factors, immunosuppression, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 continues to inflict significant morbidity and mortality, particularly on patients with preexisting health conditions. The clinical course, outcomes, and significance of immunosuppression regimen in heart transplant recipients with COVID-19 remains unclear. METHODS: We included the first 99 heart transplant recipients at participating centers with COVID-19 and followed patients until resolution. We collected baseline information, symptoms, laboratory studies, vital signs, and outcomes for included patients. The association of immunosuppression regimens at baseline with severe disease were compared using logistic regression, adjusting for age and time since transplant. RESULTS: The median age was 60 years, 25% were female, and 44% were white. The median time post-transplant to infection was 5.6 years. Overall, 15% died, 64% required hospital admission, and 7% remained asymptomatic. During the course of illness, only 57% of patients had a fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms were common. Tachypnea, oxygen requirement, elevated creatinine and inflammatory markers were predictive of severe course. Age ≥ 60 was associated with higher risk of death and the use of the combination of calcineurin inhibitor, antimetabolite, and prednisone was associated with more severe disease compared to the combination of calcineurin inhibitor and antimetabolite alone (adjusted OR = 7.3, 95% CI 1.8-36.2). Among hospitalized patients, 30% were treated for secondary infection, acute kidney injury was common and 17% required new renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We present the largest study to date of heart transplant patients with COVID-19 showing common atypical presentations and a high case fatality rate of 24% among hospitalized patients and 16% among symptomatic patients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 induced hypoxia: Single-center study.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated pneumonia represent a clinical and scientific challenge. The role of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in such a crisis remains unclear. METHODS: We examined COVID-19 patients who were supported for acute respiratory failure by both conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) and ECMO at a tertiary care institution in Washington DC. The study period extended from March 23 to April 29. We identified 59 patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation. Of those, 13 patients required ECMO. RESULTS: Nine out of 13 ECMO (69.2%) patients were decannulated from ECMO. All-cause ICU mortality was comparable between both ECMO and MV groups (6 patients [46.15%] vs. 22 patients [47.82 %], p = 0.92). ECMO non-survivors vs survivors had elevated D-dimer (9.740 mcg/ml [4.84-20.00] vs. 3.800 mcg/ml [2.19-9.11], p = 0.05), LDH (1158 ± 344.5 units/L vs. 575.9 ± 124.0 units/L, p = 0.001), and troponin (0.4315 ± 0.465 ng/ml vs. 0.034 ± 0.043 ng/ml, p = 0.04). Time on MV as expected was significantly longer in ECMO groups (563.3 hours [422.1-613.9] vs. 247.9 hours [101.8-479] in MV group, p = 0.0009) as well as ICU length of stay 576.2 hours [457.5-652.8] in ECMO group vs. 322.2 hours [120.6-569.3] in MV group, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: ECMO is a supportive intervention for COVID-19 associated pneumonia that could be considered if the optimum mechanical ventilation is deemed ineffective. Biomarkers such as D-dimer, LDH, and troponin could help with discerning the clinical prognosis in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.