Building resilient heart center teams.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to move beyond measures to improve individual resilience but to focus on measures to achieve better team resilience. RECENT FINDINGS: The COVID pandemic, shortages of heath care workers, and subsequent viral resurgence in 2022 placed tremendous stress on pediatric healthcare systems. Much has been written about individual wellness, mindfulness, and strategies to be a more resilient individual. However, little has been written on the importance of team resilience. Resilient teams work together to overcome daily stressors and challenges. Although leaders must create and foster a collaborative culture to establish cohesive and resilient teams; it also requires tremendous institutional support. Four key factors have emerged with regards to successful team resilience: candor, humility, resourcefulness, and compassion and empathy. This article discusses the key elements required for resilient teams to not only survive but also to thrive. SUMMARY: Effective heart centers, like the symphony, are a collection of individuals all coming together to care for a child or create a singular piece of music. Heart centers without effective leaders will most certainly fail, but even with the most accomplished and passionate leaders, there must be administrative institutional support and a shared vision.

Variation in survival in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A multi-institutional analysis of 594 consecutive patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 49 hospitals within 21 states.

OBJECTIVES: We reviewed 594 consecutive patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 49 hospitals within 21 states and examined patient characteristics, treatments, and variation in outcomes over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: A multi-institutional database was used to assess all patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with and separated from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between March 2020 and December 2021, inclusive. Descriptive analysis was stratified by 4 time categories: group A = March 2020 to June 2020, group B = July 2020 to December 2020, group C = January 2021 to June 2021, group D = July 2021 to December 2021. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression was used to assess continuous trends in survival where time was operationalized as the number of days between each patient's cannulation and that of the first patient in March 2020, controlling for multiple variables and risk factors. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, of 594 patients, 221 survived (37.2%) and 373 died. Throughout the study, median age [interquartile range] declined (group A = 51.0 [41.0-60.0] years, group D = 39.0 [32.0-48.0] years, P < .001); median days between Coronavirus Disease 2019 diagnosis and intubation increased (group A = 4.0 [1.0-8.5], group D = 9.0 [5.0-14.5], P < .001); and use of medications (glucocorticoids, interleukin-6 blockers, antivirals, antimalarials) and convalescent plasma fluctuated significantly (all P < .05). Estimated odds of survival varied over the study period with a decline between April 1, 2020, and November 21, 2020 (odds ratio, 0.39, 95% credible interval, 0.18-0.87, probability of reduction in survival = 95.7%), improvement between November 21, 2020, and May 17, 2021 (odds ratio, 1.85, 95% credible interval, 0.86-4.09, probability of improvement = 93.4%), and decline between May 17, 2021, and December 1, 2021 (odds ratio, 0.49, 95% credible interval, 0.19-1.44, probability of decrease = 92.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Survival for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has fluctuated during the stages of the pandemic. Minimizing variability by adherence to best practices may refine the optimal use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a pandemic response.

Variation in outcomes with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the era of coronavirus: A multicenter cohort evaluation.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with acute respiratory distress syndrome unresponsive to other interventions. However, a COVID-19 infection may result in a differential tolerance to both medical treatment and ECMO management. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes (mortality, organ failure, circuit complications) in patients on ECMO with and without COVID-19 infection, either by venovenous (VV) or venoarterial (VA) cannulation. This is a multicenter, retrospective analysis of a national database of patients placed on ECMO between May 2020 and January 2022 within the United States. Nine-hundred thirty patients were classified as either Pulmonary (PULM, n = 206), Cardiac (CARD, n = 279) or COVID-19 (COVID, n = 445). Patients were younger in COVID groups: PULM = 48.4 ± 15.8 years versus COVID = 44.9 ± 12.3 years, p = 0.006, and CARD = 57.9 ± 15.4 versus COVID = 46.5 ± 11.8 years, p < 0.001. Total hours on ECMO were greatest for COVID patients with a median support time two-times higher for VV support (365 [101, 657] hours vs 183 [63, 361], p < 0.001), and three times longer for VA support (212 [99, 566] hours vs 70 [17, 159], p < 0.001). Mortality was highest for COVID patients for both cannulation types (VA-70% vs 51% in CARD, p = 0.041, and VV-59% vs PULM-42%, p < 0.001). For VA supported patients hepatic failure was more often seen with COVID patients, while for VV support renal failure was higher. Circuit complications were more frequent in the COVID group as compared to both CARD and PULM with significantly higher circuit change-outs, circuit thromboses and oxygenator failures. Anticoagulation with direct thrombin inhibitors was used more often in COVID compared to both CARD (31% vs 10%, p = 0.002) and PULM (43% vs 15%, p < 0.001) groups. This multicenter observational study has shown that COVID patients on ECMO had higher support times, greater hospital mortality and higher circuit complications, when compared to patients managed for either cardiac or pulmonary lesions.

Multi-institutional Analysis of 505 Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019 Supported With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Predictors of Survival.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed our experience with 505 patients with confirmed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at 45 hospitals and estimated risk factors for mortality. METHODS: A multi-institutional database was created and used to assess all patients with COVID-19 who were supported with ECMO. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression model was estimated to assess the effect on survival of multiple potential risk factors for mortality, including age at cannulation for ECMO as well as days between diagnosis of COVID-19 and intubation and days between intubation and cannulation for ECMO. RESULTS: Median time on ECMO was 18 days (interquartile range, 10-29 days). All 505 patients separated from ECMO: 194 patients (38.4%) survived and 311 patients (61.6%) died. Survival with venovenous ECMO was 184 of 466 patients (39.5%), and survival with venoarterial ECMO was 8 of 30 patients (26.7%). Survivors had lower median age (44 vs 51 years, P < .001) and shorter median time interval from diagnosis to intubation (7 vs 11 days, P = .001). Adjusting for several confounding factors, we estimated that an ECMO patient intubated on day 14 after the diagnosis of COVID-19 vs day 4 had a relative odds of survival of 0.65 (95% credible interval, 0.44-0.96; posterior probability of negative effect, 98.5%). Age was also negatively associated with survival: relative to a 38-year-old patient, we estimated that a 57-year-old patient had a relative odds of survival of 0.43 (95% credible interval, 0.30-0.61; posterior probability of negative effect, >99.99%). CONCLUSIONS: ECMO facilitates salvage and survival of select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Survivors tend to be younger and have shorter time from diagnosis to intubation. Survival of patients supported with only venovenous ECMO was 39.5%.

Multi-institutional Analysis of 200 COVID-19 Patients Treated With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Outcomes and Trends.

BACKGROUND: The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of patients with COVID-19 continues to evolve. The purpose of this analysis is to review our multi-institutional clinical experience involving 200 consecutive patients at 29 hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 supported with ECMO. METHODS: This analysis includes our first 200 COVID-19 patients with complete data who were supported with and separated from ECMO. These patients were cannulated between March 17 and December 1, 2020. Differences by mortality group were assessed using χ2 tests for categoric variables and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests and Welch's analysis of variance for continuous variables. RESULTS: Median ECMO time was 15 days (interquartile range, 9 to 28). All 200 patients have separated from ECMO: 90 patients (45%) survived and 110 patients (55%) died. Survival with venovenous ECMO was 87 of 188 patients (46.3%), whereas survival with venoarterial ECMO was 3 of 12 patients (25%). Of 90 survivors, 77 have been discharged from the hospital and 13 remain hospitalized at the ECMO-providing hospital. Survivors had lower median age (47 versus 56 years, P < .001) and shorter median time from diagnosis to ECMO cannulation (8 versus 12 days, P = .003). For the 90 survivors, adjunctive therapies on ECMO included intravenous steroids (64), remdesivir (49), convalescent plasma (43), anti-interleukin-6 receptor blockers (39), prostaglandin (33), and hydroxychloroquine (22). CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation facilitates survival of select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Survivors tend to be younger and have a shorter duration from diagnosis to cannulation. Substantial variation exists in drug treatment of COVID-19, but ECMO offers a reasonable rescue strategy.

Clinical impact of pharmacist-led antibiotic stewardship programs in outpatient settings in the United States: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of the impact of pharmacist interventions on antibiotic prescribing and the resultant clinical outcomes in an outpatient antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) in the United States. METHODS: Reports on studies of pharmacist-led ASP interventions implemented in US outpatient settings published from January 2000 to November 2020 and indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar were included. Additionally, studies documented at the ClinicalTrials.gov website were evaluated. Study selection was based on predetermined inclusion criteria; only randomized controlled trials, observational studies, nonrandomized controlled trials, and case-control studies conducted in outpatient settings in the United States were included. The primary outcome was the observed differences in antibiotic prescribing or clinical benefits between pharmacist-led ASP interventions and usual care. RESULTS: Of the 196 studies retrieved for full-text review, a cumulative total of 15 studies were included for final evaluation. Upon analysis, we observed that there was no consistent methodology in the implementation of ASPs and, in most cases, the outcome of interest varied. Nonetheless, there was a trend toward improvement in antibiotic prescribing with pharmacist interventions in ASPs compared with that under usual care (P < 0.05). However, the results of these studies are not easily generalizable. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a need for a consistent approach for the practical application of outpatient pharmacist-led ASPs. Managed care organizations could play a significant role in ensuring the successful implementation of pharmacist-led ASPs in outpatient settings.

Early Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Congenital Heart Surgery Programs Across the World: Assessment by a Global Multi-Societal Consortium.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic currently gripping the globe is impacting the entire health care system with rapidly escalating morbidities and mortality. Although the infectious risk to the pediatric population appears low, the effects on children with congenital heart disease (CHD) remain poorly understood. The closure of congenital heart surgery programs worldwide to address the growing number of infected individuals could have an unintended impact on future health for COVID-19-negative patients with CHD. Pediatric and congenital heart surgeons, given their small numbers and close relationships, are uniquely positioned to collectively assess the impact of the pandemic on surgical practice and care of children with CHD. We present the results of an international survey sent to pediatric and congenital heart surgeons characterizing the early impact of COVID-19 on the care of patients with CHD.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Treatment of Severe Pulmonary and Cardiac Compromise in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Experience with 32 Patients.

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases surge worldwide, an urgent need exists to enhance our understanding of the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of severely ill patients with COVID-19 who develop acute respiratory and cardiac compromise refractory to conventional therapy. The purpose of this manuscript is to review our initial clinical experience in 32 patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated with ECMO. A multi-institutional registry and database was created and utilized to assess all patients who were supported with ECMO provided by SpecialtyCare. Data captured included patient characteristics, pre-COVID-19 risk factors and comorbidities, confirmation of COVID-19 diagnosis, features of ECMO support, specific medications utilized to treat COVID-19, and short-term outcomes through hospital discharge. This analysis includes all of our patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO, with an analytic window starting March 17, 2020, when our first COVID-19 patient was placed on ECMO, and ending April 9, 2020. During the 24 days of this study, 32 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were placed on ECMO at nine different hospitals. As of the time of analysis, 17 remain on ECMO, 10 died before or shortly after decannulation, and five are alive and extubated after removal from ECMO, with one of these five discharged from the hospital. Adjunctive medication in the surviving patients while on ECMO was as follows: four of five survivors received intravenous steroids, three of five survivors received antiviral medications (Remdesivir), two of five survivors were treated with anti-interleukin-6-receptor monoclonal antibodies (Tocilizumab or Sarilumab), and one of five survivors received hydroxychloroquine. Analysis of these 32 COVID-19 patients with severe pulmonary compromise supported with ECMO suggests that ECMO may play a useful role in salvaging select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Additional patient experience and associated clinical and laboratory data must be obtained to further define the optimal role of ECMO in patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). These initial data may provide useful information to help define the best strategies to care for these challenging patients and may also provide a framework for much-needed future research about the use of ECMO to treat patients with COVID-19.