In-hospital and 6-month outcomes in patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (EuroECMO-COVID): a multicentre, prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been widely used in patients with COVID-19, but uncertainty remains about the determinants of in-hospital mortality and data on post-discharge outcomes are scarce. The aims of this study were to investigate the variables associated with in-hospital outcomes in patients who received ECMO during the first wave of COVID-19 and to describe the status of patients 6 months after ECMO initiation. METHODS: EuroECMO-COVID is a prospective, multicentre, observational study developed by the European Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. This study was based on data from patients aged 16 years or older who received ECMO support for refractory COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic-from March 1 to Sept 13, 2020-at 133 centres in 21 countries. In-hospital mortality and mortality 6 months after ECMO initiation were the primary outcomes. Mixed-Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate associations between patient and management-related variables (eg, patient demographics, comorbidities, pre-ECMO status, and ECMO characteristics and complications) and in-hospital deaths. Survival status at 6 months was established through patient contact or institutional charts review. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04366921, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 1 and Sept 13, 2020, 1215 patients (942 [78%] men and 267 [22%] women; median age 53 years [IQR 46-60]) were included in the study. Median ECMO duration was 15 days (IQR 8-27). 602 (50%) of 1215 patients died in hospital, and 852 (74%) patients had at least one complication. Multiorgan failure was the leading cause of death (192 [36%] of 528 patients who died with available data). In mixed-Cox analyses, age of 60 years or older, use of inotropes and vasopressors before ECMO initiation, chronic renal failure, and time from intubation to ECMO initiation of 4 days or more were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. 613 patients did not die in hospital, and 547 (95%) of 577 patients for whom data were available were alive at 6 months. 102 (24%) of 431 patients had returned to full-time work at 6 months, and 57 (13%) of 428 patients had returned to part-time work. At 6 months, respiratory rehabilitation was required in 88 (17%) of 522 patients with available data, and the most common residual symptoms included dyspnoea (185 [35%] of 523 patients) and cardiac (52 [10%] of 514 patients) or neurocognitive (66 [13%] of 512 patients) symptoms. INTERPRETATION: Patient's age, timing of cannulation (<4 days vs ≥4 days from intubation), and use of inotropes and vasopressors are essential factors to consider when analysing the outcomes of patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19. Despite post-discharge survival being favourable, persisting long-term symptoms suggest that dedicated post-ECMO follow-up programmes are required. FUNDING: None.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for COVID-19 patients: A systematic review of literature.

OBJECTIVE: Myocardial damage occurs in up to 25% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. While veno-venous extracorporeal life support (V-V ECLS) is used as respiratory support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be required for severe cardiac dysfunction. This systematic review summarizes the available literature regarding MCS use rates, disease drivers for MCS initiation, and MCS outcomes in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: PubMed/EMBASE were searched until October 14, 2021. Articles including adults receiving ECLS for COVID-19 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of MCS use. Secondary outcomes included mortality at follow-up, ECLS conversion rate, intubation-to-cannulation time, time on ECLS, cardiac diseases, use of inotropes, and vasopressors. RESULTS: Twenty-eight observational studies (comprising both ECLS-only populations and ECLS patients as part of larger populations) included 4218 COVID-19 patients (females: 28.8%; median age: 54.3 years, 95%CI: 50.7-57.8) of whom 2774 (65.8%) required ECLS with the majority (92.7%) on V-V ECLS, 4.7% on veno-arterial ECLS and/or Impella, and 2.6% on other ECLS. Acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest were reported in 7.8%, 9.7%, and 6.6% of patients, respectively. Vasopressors were used in 37.2%. Overall, 3.1% of patients required an ECLS change from V-V ECLS to MCS for heart failure, myocarditis, or myocardial infarction. The median ECLS duration was 15.9 days (95%CI: 13.9-16.3), with an overall survival of 54.6% and 28.1% in V-V ECLS and MCS patients. One study reported 61.1% survival with oxy-right ventricular assist device. CONCLUSION: MCS use for cardiocirculatory compromise has been reported in 7.3% of COVID-19 patients requiring ECLS, which is a lower percentage compared to the incidence of any severe cardiocirculatory complication. Based on the poor survival rates, further investigations are warranted to establish the most appropriated indications and timing for MCS in COVID-19.

[Mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction: from diagnosis to treatment]. / Le complicanze meccaniche dell'infarto miocardico acuto: dalla diagnosi al trattamento.

Post-infarction mechanical complications include left ventricular free-wall rupture, ventricular septal rupture, and papillary muscle rupture. With the advent of early reperfusion strategies, including thrombolysis and percutaneous coronary intervention, these events now occur in fewer than 0.3% of patients following acute myocardial infarction. However, unfortunately, there has been no parallel decrease in associated mortality rates over the past two decades. Moreover, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic the incidence of mechanical complications resulting from ST-elevation myocardial infarction has possibly risen. Early diagnosis and prompt management are crucial to improving outcomes. Although some percutaneous device repair approaches are available, surgical treatment remains the gold standard for these catastrophic post-infarction complications. The timing of surgery, also related to the type of complication and patient's clinical conditions, and the possible role of mechanical circulatory supports before and after surgery, represent main topics of debate that still need to be fully addressed.

Acute infective endocarditis during COVID-19 pandemic time: The dark side of the moon.

The COVID-19 pandemic has remarkably impacted the hospital management and the profile of patients suffering from acute cardiovascular syndromes. Among them, acute infective endocarditis (AIE) represented a rather frequent part of these urgent/emergent procedures. The paper by Liu et al. has clearly shown the higher risk features which patients with a diagnosis of AIE presented at hospital admission during the first part (first and second waves) of the outbreak, often requiring challenging operations, but fortunately not associated with the worse outcome if compared to results obtained before the SARS-2 pandemic. The report discussed herein presents several other aspects worth discussion and comments, particularly in relation to hospital management and postdischarge outcome which certainly deserve to be highlighted, but also further investigations.

The day after tomorrow: cardiac surgery and coronavirus disease-2019.

The impact of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced the governments worldwide to deal with an unprecedented health crisis. The aim of this review is to summarize what happened to cardiac surgery worldwide during the first wave of this pandemic. A literature search was performed to extrapolate key concepts regarding guidelines and reorganization of cardiac surgery wards during COVID-19. Supporting literature was also included to discuss the hot topics related to COVID-19 and cardiac surgery. Hence, both official documents from national scientific societies and single- or multiple-center experiences during the pandemics are reviewed and discussed. In Italy, the first western country hit by the pandemic, two different models were proposed to cope with the need for ICU/ward beds and to reallocate cardiac surgical services: Hub-and-Spoke system ('Hubs', dedicated to perform urgent and nondeferrable surgery, and 'Spokes', turned into COVID centers) and/or a progressive reduction in surgical activity. Worldwide, several guidelines/consensus statements were published, suggesting how to deal with the outbreak. Two different approaches for stratifying surgical indications were proposed: dynamic, based on the number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients; static, based only on the severity of the cardiovascular disease. Moreover, the importance of personal protective equipment was stressed. Several measures should have been adopted to deal with an unprecedented need for healthcare resources allocation to care for COVID-19 patients, putting the healthcare systems under serious stress. Cardiac surgery has, as have most surgical activities, been asked to reduce its own activity, giving priority to emergency and nondeferrable cases.

Prognostic value of SARS-CoV-2 on patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze Italian Cardiac Surgery experience during the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) identifying risk factors for overall mortality according to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) status. METHODS: From February 20 to May 31, 2020, 1354 consecutive adult patients underwent cardiac surgery at 22 Italian Centers; 589 (43.5%), patients came from the red zone. Based on COVID-19 status, 1306 (96.5%) were negative to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-N), and 48 (3.5%) were positive to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-P); among the COVID-P 11 (22.9%) and 37 (77.1%) become positive, before and after surgery, respectively. Surgical procedures were as follows: 396 (29.2%) isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 714 (52.7%) isolated non-CABG procedures, 207 (15.3%) two associate procedures, and three or more procedures in 37 (2.7%). Heart failure was significantly predominant in group COVID-N (10.4% vs. 2.5%, p = .01). RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 1.6% (22 cases), being significantly higher in COVID-P group (10 cases, 20.8% vs. 12, 0.9%, p < .001). Multivariable analysis identified COVID-P condition as a predictor of in-hospital mortality together with emergency status. In the COVID-P subgroup, the multivariable analysis identified increasing age and low oxygen saturation at admission as risk factors for in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: As expected, SARS-CoV-2 infection, either before or soon after cardiac surgery significantly increases in-hospital mortality. Moreover, among COVID-19-positive patients, older age and poor oxygenation upon admission seem to be associated with worse outcomes.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19 Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Italian Society for Cardiac Surgery Report.

An increased need of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is going to become evident as treatment of SARS-CoV-2 respiratory distress syndrome. This is the first report of the Italian Society for Cardiac Surgery (SICCH) on preliminary experience with COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO support. Data from 12 Italian hospitals participating in SICCH were retrospectively analyzed. Between March 1 and September 15, 2020, a veno-venous (VV) ECMO system was installed in 67 patients (94%) and a veno-arterio-venous ECMO in four (6%). Five patients required VA ECMO after initial weaning from VV ECMO. Thirty (42.2%) patients were weaned from ECMO, while 39 (54.9%) died on ECMO, and six (8.5%) died after ECMO removal. Overall hospital survival was 36.6% (n = 26). Main causes of death were multiple organ failure (n = 14, 31.1%) and sepsis (n = 11, 24.4%). On multivariable analysis, predictors of death while on ECMO support were older age (p = 0.048), elevated pre-ECMO C-reactive protein level (p = 0.048), higher positive end-expiratory pressure on ventilator (p = 0.036) and lower lung compliance (p = 0.032). If the conservative treatment is not effective, ECMO support might be considered as life-saving rescue therapy for COVID-19 refractory respiratory failure. However warm caution and thoughtful approaches for timely detection and treatment should be taken for such a delicate patients population.