Neurologic Complications of Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

In COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), our primary objective was to determine the frequency of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Secondary objectives were to estimate the frequency of ischemic stroke, to explore association between higher anticoagulation targets and ICH, and to estimate the association between neurologic complications and in-hospital mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and MedRxiv databases from inception to March 15, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We identified studies that described acute neurological complications in adult patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection requiring ECMO. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Studies with 95% or more of its patients on venovenous or venoarterial ECMO were pooled for meta-analysis, which was calculated using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-four studies (n = 3,347) were included in the systematic review. Venovenous ECMO was used in 97% of patients. Meta-analysis of ICH and ischemic stroke on venovenous ECMO included 18 and 11 studies, respectively. The frequency of ICH was 11% (95% CI, 8-15%), with intraparenchymal hemorrhage being the most common subtype (73%), while the frequency of ischemic strokes was 2% (95% CI, 1-3%). Higher anticoagulation targets were not associated with increased frequency of ICH (p = 0.06). In-hospital mortality was 37% (95% CI, 34-40%) and neurologic causes ranked as the third most common cause of death. The risk ratio of mortality in COVID-19 patients with neurologic complications on venovenous ECMO compared with patients without neurologic complications was 2.24 (95% CI, 1.46-3.46). There were insufficient studies for meta-analysis of COVID-19 patients on venoarterial ECMO. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients requiring venovenous ECMO have a high frequency of ICH, and the development of neurologic complications more than doubled the risk of death. Healthcare providers should be aware of these increased risks and maintain a high index of suspicion for ICH.

Prophylactic LVAD for high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS) is associated with poor prognosis. Medical therapy with afterload reduction, contractility optimization and systemic vasopressors often fails, and mechanical support is required. The aim of this study was to propose a strategy of prophylactic left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2019, 12 consecutive patients at high risk for PCS underwent cardiac surgery (valve surgery and/or coronary artery bypass grafting) with preplanned, prophylactic implantation of LVAD (CentriMag or Rotaflow). We reviewed patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent a valve corrective surgery and seven patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. Eleven of 12 patients had successful LVAD insertion, support and wean, and survival to hospital discharge. Left ventricular function was stable perioperatively and improved at follow-up. Patients required low doses of inotropic support and no patients required extracorporeal membranous oxygenation. Major complications included, prolonged mechanical ventilation (n = 7), intra-aortic balloon pump (n = 1), temporary dialysis (n = 2), stroke (n = 1), bleeding requiring reoperation (n = 3), infection requiring mediastinal washout (n = 1). At a mean follow-up of, 660 ± 460.6 days all patients had either NYHA Class 1 (n = 6) or 2 (n = 4). There were two late mortalities (after 1 year). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic LVAD is a viable technique in select cardiac surgery patients who are high-risk for postcardiotomy shock. Further prospective study is warranted.

Concurrent prophylactic left atrial appendage exclusion: results from a randomized controlled trial pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The left atrial appendage is a significant source of cardioembolic thrombi. Open mitral valve surgery presents an opportune time to exclude this appendage from cardiovascular circulation. However, sparse randomized trial support exists for this concomitant procedure. We therefore designed a randomized controlled trial to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of concomitant left atrial appendage exclusion. This report details early outcomes of the pilot trial. METHODS: Forty-three patients were randomized to either undergo concomitant suture exclusion of their left atrial appendage under direct vision or not during their open mitral valve surgery. Clinical and biochemical postoperative outcomes, including hemodynamic and hemostatic parameters, were analyzed. RESULTS: There were no deaths in either group. The incidence of cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, and acute renal injury were similar between groups; a composite outcome of 10 major postoperative complications occurred in 32% of the left atrial appendage exclusion group versus 38% of the control group (p=0.75). Intensive care (median stay 2 days vs 1 day in the control group, p=0.55) and hospital lengths of stay (median stay 9 days in both groups, p=0.98) were also similar between groups. Specifically, no additional hemodynamic alterations (need for intra-aortic balloon pump in 1 vs 2 patients in the control group, p=0.61) or hemostatic complications (no re-operations for bleeding in either group, need for blood product transfusion in 2 vs 1 patient in the control group, p=1.0) were noted in the left atrial appendage exclusion group. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial demonstrates the safety of and feasibility of a larger trial powered to detect clinically relevant short- and long-term outcomes of concomitant left atrial appendage exclusion with open mitral valve surgery.