ABSTRACT
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly used in COVID-19-related pulmonary failure and the number of patients recovering from COVID-19 is growing. Here, we assess survival and recovery 6 months after ECMO for COVID-19. From April 2020 to September 2021, n = 60 (60.5 [51.0-65.0] years, 23.3% female) were treated with venovenous/venoarterial ECMO for COVID-19. 41.7% were weaned off ECMO, survival-to-discharge was 40.0% (n = 24). Age (63.0 [60.0-66.8] vs. 55.0 [43.8-60.0] years, p < 0.001), vasoactive support (97.2% vs . 75.0%, p = 0.013), and pre-ECMO SOFA scores (13.0 [12.0-14.8] vs. 12.0 [10.0-13.8] p = 0.036) correlated with nonsurvival. All patients aged >65 years, with histories of neoplasia, immunocompromise, chronic renal failure, or frailty died. After 6 months, 20 were alive (6-month survival 33.3%, survival conditioned on survival-to-discharge 83.3%), with follow-up in 19. 57.9% showed no relevant, 26.3% moderate, 15.8% severe deficits. Cardiopulmonary status was satisfactory (mMRC level: 84.2% ≤2). 73.7% were independent in daily life. Cognitive impairments were frequent (52.6%). 26.3% showed moderate depression, 15.8% posttraumatic stress disorder. Social and work life were considerably affected. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation thus can serve as salvage therapy in COVID-19, but advanced age, immunocompromise, histories of neoplasia, and frailty must be considered as relative contraindications. Age, vasoactive support, and SOFA scores assist discriminating in daily practice. Deficits after 6 months are substantial, and efforts need to focus on long-term recovery.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Frailty , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Female , Male , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Quality of Life , Functional Status , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Few reliable data are available on clinical outcome of octogenarians undergoing simultaneous aortic and mitral valve replacement. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 55 patients aged 80 years and over with double valve replacement who were operated on at our institution between 2001 and 2005. Thirty-day mortality and 1-year survival were assessed. RESULTS: For most of the patients, stenosis was the cause of aortic valve surgery, whereas regurgitation was the cause of mitral valve replacement in the majority of patients. In one third of the patients, cardiac surgery had to be performed on an urgent/emergency basis. A large number of patients had concomitant diagnoses such as atrial fibrillation (73%), coronary artery disease (44%), renal insufficiency (29%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (20%), and diabetes mellitus (15%). In total, 16 patients (29%) died during follow-up. Survival rates at 30 days and 1 year were 91% and 71%, respectively. As determined by multivariable logistic regression analysis, Karnofsky performance status (hazard ratio: 0.899 per % increase; 95% confidence interval: 0.811 to 0.996; p = 0.043) and bypass time (hazard ratio: 1.062 per min; 95% confidence interval: 1.006 to 1.120; p = 0.028) were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Beside these factors, additional independent predictors of 1-year mortality were preoperative stroke and postoperative intestinal failure (p = 0.008 and 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that, for selected octogenarians, double valve replacement can be performed with acceptable outcome. A better performance status of the patients at the time of cardiac surgery will probably improve 1-year survival.
