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.

Reducing surgical cancellations: a successful application of Lean Six Sigma in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic emphasises the need to use healthcare resources efficient and effective to guarantee access to high-quality healthcare in an affordable manner. Surgical cancellations have a negative impact on these. We used the Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodology to reduce cardiac surgical cancellations in a University Medical Center in the Netherlands, where approximately 20% of cardiac surgeries were being cancelled. METHOD: A multifunctional project team used the data-driven LSS process improvement methodology and followed the 'DMAIC' improvement cycle (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control). Through all DMAIC phases, real-world data from the hospital information system supported the team during biweekly problem-solving sessions. This quality improvement study used an 'interrupted time series' study design. Data were collected between January 2014 and December 2016, covering 20 months prior and 16 months after implementation. Outcomes were number of last-minute coronary artery bypass graft cancellations, number of repeated diagnostics, referral to treatment time and patient satisfaction. Statistical process control charts visualised the change and impact over time. Students two-sample t-test was used to test statistical significance. A p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: Last-minute cancellations were reduced by 50% (p=0.010), repeated preoperative diagnostics (X-ray) declined by 67% (p=0.021), referral to treatment time reduced by 35% (p=0.000) and patient Net Promoter Score increased by 14% (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: This study shows that LSS is an effective quality improvement approach to help healthcare organisations to deliver more safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable and patient-centred care. Crucial success factors were the use of a structured data-driven problem-solving approach, focus on patient value and process flow, leadership support and engagement of involved healthcare professionals through the entire care pathway. Ongoing monitoring of key performance indicators is helpful in engaging the organisation to maintain continuous process improvement and sustaining long-term impact.