Left ventricular hemodynamics with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable debate about the hemodynamic effects of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). AIMS: To evaluate the changes in left ventricular (LV) function, volumes, and work in patients treated with VA-ECMO using invasive LV catheterization and three-dimensional echocardiographic volumes. METHODS: Patients on VA-ECMO underwent invasive hemodynamic evaluation due to concerns regarding candidacy for decannulation. Hemodynamic parameters were reported as means±standard deviations or medians (interquartile ranges) after evaluating for normality. Paired comparisons were done to evaluate hemodynamics at the baseline (highest) and lowest tolerated levels of VA-ECMO support. RESULTS: Twenty patients aged 52.3 ± 15.8 years were included. All patients received VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock (5/20 SCAI stage D, 15/20 SCAI stage E). At 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) days after VA-ECMO cannulation, the baseline LV ejection fraction was 20% (15%, 27%). The baseline and lowest VA-ECMO flows were 4.0 ± 0.6 and 1.5 ± 0.6 L/min, respectively. Compared to the lowest flow, full VA-ECMO support reduced LV end-diastolic volume [109 ± 81 versus 134 ± 93 mL, p = 0.001], LV end-diastolic pressure (14 ± 9 vs. 19 ± 9 mmHg, p < 0.001), LV stroke work (1858 ± 1413 vs. 2550 ± 1486 mL*mmHg, p = 0.002), and LV pressure-volume area (PVA) (4507 ± 1910 vs. 5193 ± 2388, p = 0.03) respectively. Mean arterial pressure was stable at the highest and lowest flows (80 ± 16 vs. 75 ± 14, respectively; p = 0.08) but arterial elastance was higher at the highest VA-ECMO flow (4.9 ± 2.2 vs lowest flow 2.7 ± 1.6; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High flow VA-ECMO support significantly reduced LV end-diastolic pressure, end-diastolic volume, stroke work, and PVA compared to minimal support. The Ea was higher and MAP was stable or minimally elevated on high flow.

COVID-19-Associated Myocarditis: An Evolving Concern in Cardiology and Beyond.

The direct and indirect adverse effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the cardiovascular system, including myocarditis, are of paramount importance. These not only affect the disease course but also determine clinical outcomes and recovery. In this review, the authors aimed at providing an update on the incidence of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-associated myocarditis. Our knowledge and experience relevant to this area continues to evolve rapidly since the beginning of the pandemic. It is crucial for the scientific and medical community to stay abreast of current information. Contrasting early reports, recent data suggest that the overall incidence of SARS-CoV-2-associated myocarditis is relatively low, yet infected individuals are at a substantially increased risk. Therefore, understanding the pathophysiology and diagnostic evaluation, including the use of serum biomarkers and imaging modalities, remain important. This review aims to summarize the most recent data in these areas as they relate to COVID-19-associated myocarditis. Given its increasing relevance, a brief update is included on the proposed mechanisms of myocarditis in COVID-19 vaccine recipients.

Update on COVID-19 Myocarditis.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) gained worldwide attention at the end of 2019 when it was identified to cause severe respiratory distress syndrome. While it primarily affects the respiratory system, we now have evidence that it affects multiple organ systems in the human body. Cardiac manifestations may include myocarditis, life threatening arrhythmias, acute coronary syndrome, systolic heart failure, and cardiogenic shock. Myocarditis is increasingly recognized as a complication of Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) and may result from direct viral injury or from exaggerated host immune response. The diagnosis is established similar to other etiologies, and is based on detailed history, clinical exam, laboratory findings and non-invasive imaging studies. When available, cardiac MRI is the preferred imaging modality. Endomyocardial biopsy may be performed if the diagnosis remains uncertain. Current management is mainly supportive with the potential addition of interventions recommended for severe COVID-19 disease, such as remdesivir, steroids, and convalescent plasma. In the setting of cardiogenic shock and refractory, life-threatening arrhythmias that persist despite medical therapy, advanced mechanical circulatory support devices should be considered. Ultimately, early recognition and aggressive intervention are key factors in reducing morbidity and mortality. Our management strategy is expected to evolve further as we learn more about COVID-19 disease and the associated cardiac complications.