ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with COVID-19 are generally primarily treated in regional medical centers. Besides oxygen therapy, treatment usually involves mechanical ventilation and prone positioning should the patient develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In patients with refractory respiratory failure, initiation of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) may be the last therapeutic resort. Treatment with vv-ECMO requires highly experienced medical equipment and personnel. ECMO centers may be able to aid the regional medical centers, as this is not available for most hospitals. Implantation of the vv-ECMO system at the bedside and subsequently transporting the patient to a specialized center for further therapy could relieve both regional and specialized hospitals. Method(s): All patients in the participating centers of the DIVI between January 2020 and March 2021 with severe COVID-19induced ARDS were evaluated. Patients treated with vv-ECMO were included. Two groups were determined. The first group (group A) consisted of patients primarily treated in a regional medical center. These patients were cannulated at the bedside and transferred to the ECMO center. Group B consisted of patients directly referred to a specialized ECMO center. A comparison between mortality and ECMO-associated complications was made. Result(s): In total, 650 patients were treated with vv-ECMO in the timeframe. Group A consisted of 195 patients and group B of 455 patients. Patient characteristics such as sex, body mass index and pre-existing comorbidities were comparable. The time to admission to the intensive care unit was for both groups comparable. The delay from intubation to ECMO implantation was significantly shorter in group A 4.3 +/- 0.4 days versus 6.5 +/- 0.3 days (p < 0.001). Total time on mechanical ventilation, days spent in the intensive care unit and ECMO runtime were comparable in both groups. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in ECMO-associated complications and mortality. Conclusion(s): Respiratory failure due to severe COVID-19 pneumonia may primarily be treated in a regional medical center. There is no significant increase in ECMO-associated complications and mortality due to ECMO implantation and patient transfer to a specialized center, should therapy escalation be needed.
ABSTRACT
Background: Lung transplantation (LTx) has been demonstrated to be a feasible therapy in patients with irreversible lung injury due to SARS-CoV-2. Aim of this retrospective study was to present our experience with LTx in SARS-CoV-2 patients. Method(s): Records of the 136 patients who underwent LTx between January 2021 and August 2022 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. LTx was performed in SARS-CoV-2 patients who showed radiological evidence of irreversible lung failure, after failed attempts of weaning off mechanical ventilation (MV) and ECMO;showed single-organ dysfunction;were SARS-CoV-2 negative, preferably <65 years old and awake under MV and ECMO support. Graft survival was compared between COVID-19 LTx patients and contemporary patients transplanted for other indications. Median follow-up amounted to 7.6 (5.2-14.5) months. Result(s): Among the 79 patients with SARS-CoV-2 lung failure referred for LTx, 9 (11%) patients were listed, 8 of them being transplanted between January 2021 and August 2022. One patient died while on the waiting list. All were on MV and ECMO support (awake in 6 cases) for a median ECMO support time of 75 (38.5-152.8) days. Four (50%) patients were male and median age was 52 (37-57) years. All patients underwent bilateral LTx on ECMO support that was weaned off in all patients at the end of Tx. After LTx, 2 (25%) patients showed a primary graft dysfunction (PGD) score grade 3 at 72 hours and required reinstitution of veno-venous (n = 1) and veno-arterial (n = 1) ECMO support that was successfully weaned after 7 and 6 days, respectively. One patient (12.5%) required rethoracotomy for bleeding, and two (25%) patients required new hemodialysis treatment, with recovery of renal function in all patients. Median MV time amounted to 8 days (1-30), median intensive care unit stay to 19 (13-26) days, and median hospital stay to 91 (62-103) days. No patient died in-hospital. At 1-year follow-up, graft survival was 100% in SARS-CoV-2 LTx patients and 95% for patients (n = 128) transplanted for other indications (p = 0.539). Conclusion(s): Lung transplantation in highly selected SARS-CoV-2 patients yielded excellent posttransplant results. Graft survival was comparable between patients transplanted for SARS-COV-2 pneumonia and patients transplanted for other indications. A multidisciplinary approach is of paramount importance to successfully bridge these patients to transplantation and to guarantee a complete patient functional recovery after transplantation.