Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation to Support COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Background: In patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods: All 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13th, 2020, to July 31st, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality. Results: A total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); p=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); p < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; p < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; p=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups. Conclusion: ECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.

Incidence, predictors and vascular sequelae of distal limb ischemia in minimally invasive cardiac surgery with femoral artery cannulation: an observational cohort study.

Literature regarding monitoring and consequences of distal limb ischemia due to femoral artery cannulation for Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (MICS) remains limited. The primary objective was to determine its incidence, defined as a ≥ 15% difference in regional Oxygen Saturation (rSO2) lasting ≥ four consecutive minutes between the cannulated and non-cannulated limb. The secondary objectives included: determination of distal limb ischemia, defined as a Tissue Oxygenation Index (TOI) < 50% in the cannulated limb, identification of predictors for distal limb ischemia, determination of a possible association of NIRS-diagnosed ischemia with acute kidney injury, and the need for vascular surgery up to six months after cardiac surgery. A prospective, observational cohort study with blinded rSO2-measurements to prevent intraoperative clinical decision-making. A single-center, community-hospital, clinical study. All consecutive patients ≥ 18 years old, and scheduled for predefined MICS. Patients underwent MICS with bilateral calf muscle rSO2-measurements conducted by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS). In total 75/280 patients (26.79%) experienced distal limb ischemia according to the primary objective, while 18/280 patients (6.42%) experienced distal limb ischemia according to the secondary objective. Multivariate logistic regression showed younger age to be an independent predictor for distal limb ischemia (p = 0.003). None of the patients who suffered intraoperative ischemia required vascular surgery within the follow-up period. The incidence of NIRS-diagnosed ischemia varied from 6.4% to 26.8% depending on the used criteria. Short and long-term vascular sequelae, however, are limited and not intraoperative ischemia related. The added value of intraoperative distal limb NIRS monitoring for vascular reasons seems limited. Future research on femoral artery cannulation in MICS should shift focus to other outcome parameters such as acute kidney injury, postoperative pain or paresthesias.

Predictors of poor outcome in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to identify risk factors associated with ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We also aimed to assess protocol violations of the local eligibility criteria of ECMO initiation. METHODS: All 31 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU and treated with ECMO from March 13th 2020 to 8 December 2021 were enrolled. Eligibility criteria for ECMO initiation were: P/F-ratio<50 mmHg >3 hours, P/F-ratio<80 mmHg >6 hours or pH<7.25 + PaCO2>60 mmHg >6 hours, despite maximal protective invasive ventilation. Primary outcome was ICU mortality. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of ICU mortality. RESULTS: 12 out of 31 patients (38.7%) did not survive ECMO treatment in ICU. Half of the non-survivors suffered from acute kidney failure compared to 3 out of 19 survivors (15.79%) (p = .04). Half of the non-survivors required CRRT treatment versus 1 patient in the survivor group (5.3%) (p < .01). Higher age (2.45 (0.97-6.18), p = .05), the development of AKI (5.33 (1.00-28.43), p = .05), need of CRRT during ICU stay (18.00 (1.79-181.31), p = .01) and major bleeding during ECMO therapy (0.51 (0.19-0.89), p < .01) were identified to be predictors of ICU mortality. CONCLUSION: Almost 60% of patients could be treated successfully with ECMO with sustained results at 3 months. Predictors for ICU mortality were development of AKI and need of CRRT during ICU stay, higher age category and major bleeding. Inadvertent ECMO allocation was noted in almost one in five patients.

Neurological outcome after minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery (NOMICS): An observational prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (Endo-CABG) is a minimally invasive CABG procedure with retrograde arterial perfusion. The main objective of this study is to assess neurocognitive outcome after Endo-CABG. METHODS/DESIGN: In this prospective observational cohort study, patients were categorised into: Endo-CABG (n = 60), a comparative Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) group (n = 60) and a healthy volunteer group (n = 60). A clinical neurological examination was performed both pre- and postoperatively, delirium was assessed postoperatively. A battery of 6 neurocognitive tests, Quality of life (QoL) and the level of depressive feelings were measured at baseline and after 3 months. Patient Satisfaction after Endo-CABG was assessed at 3-month follow-up. Primary endpoints were incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), stroke and delirium after Endo-CABG. Secondary endpoints were QOL, patient satisfaction and the incidence of depressive feelings after Endo-CABG. RESULTS: In total, 1 patient after Endo-CABG (1.72%) and 1 patient after PCI (1.67%) suffered from stroke during the 3-month follow-up. POCD in a patient is defined as a Reliable Change Index ≤-1.645 or Z-score ≤-1.645 in at least two tests, and was found in respectively 5 and 6 patients 3 months after Endo-CABG and PCI. Total incidence of POCD/stroke was not different (PCI: n= 7 [15.9%]; Endo-CABG: n= 6 [13.0%], p = 0.732). ICU delirium after Endo-CABG was found in 5 (8.6%) patients. QoL increased significantly three months after Endo-CABG and was comparable with QoL level after PCI and in the control group. Patient satisfaction after Endo-CABG and PCI was comparable. At follow-up, the level of depressive feelings was decreased in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of poor neurocognitive outcome, including stroke, POCD and postoperative ICU delirium until three months after Endo-CABG is low and comparable with PCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02979782).

Impact of implementation of an individualised thromboprophylaxis protocol in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: A longitudinal controlled before-after study.

INTRODUCTION: An individualised thromboprophylaxis was implemented in critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on clinical outcome. METHODS: In this mono-centric, controlled, before-after study, all consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU from March 13th to April 20th 2020 were included. A thromboprophylaxis protocol, including augmented LMWH dosing, individually tailored with anti-Xa measurements and twice-weekly ultrasonography screening for DVT, was implemented on March 31th 2020. Primary endpoint is one-month mortality. Secondary outcomes include two-week and three-week mortality, the incidence of VTE, acute kidney injury and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Multiple regression modelling was used to correct for differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 46 patients were included in the before group, 26 patients in the after group. One month mortality decreased from 39.13% to 3.85% (p < 0.001). After correction for confounding variables, one-month mortality was significantly higher in the before group (p = 0.02, OR 8.86 (1.46, 53.75)). The cumulative incidence of VTE and CRRT was respectively 41% and 30.4% in the before group and dropped to 15% (p = 0.03) and 3.8% (p = 0.01), respectively. After correction for confounding variables, risk of VTE (p = 0.03, 6.01 (1.13, 32.12)) and CRRT (p = 0.02, OR 19.21 (1.44, 255.86)) remained significantly higher in the before group. CONCLUSION: Mortality, cumulative risk of VTE and need for CRRT may be significantly reduced in COVID-19 patients by implementation of a more aggressive thromboprophylaxis protocol. Future research should focus on confirmation of these results in a randomized design and on uncovering the mechanisms underlying these observations. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04394000.

A comparison between minimized extracorporeal circuits and conventional extracorporeal circuits in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery: is 'minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation' just low prime or closed loop perfusion ?

INTRODUCTION: Even though results have been encouraging, an unequivocal conclusion on the beneficial effect of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery cannot be derived from previous publications. Long-term outcomes are rarely reported and a significant decrease in operative mortality has not been shown. Most studies have a limited number of patients and are underpowered. They merely report on short-term results of a heterogeneous intraoperative group using different types of ECC system in aortic valve surgery. The aim of the present study was to determine whether MiECC systems are more beneficial than conventional extracorporeal systems (CECC) with regard to mortality, hospital stay and inflammation and with only haemodilution and blood-air interface as differences. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data regarding mortality, hospital stay and inflammation in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve surgery. Forty patients were divided into two groups based on the type of extracorporeal system used; conventional (n=20) or MiECC (n=20). RESULTS: Perioperative blood product requirements were significantly lower in the MiECC group (MiECC: 0.2±0.5 units vs CECC: 0.9±1.2 units, p=0.004). No differences were seen postoperatively regarding mortality (5% vs 5%, p=0.99), total length of hospital stay (10.6±7.2 days (MiECC) vs 12.1±5.9 days (CECC), p=0.39) or inflammation markers (CRP: MiECC: 7.09±13.62 mg/L vs CECC: 3.4±3.2 mg/L, p=0.89). CONCLUSION: MiECC provides circulatory support that is equally safe and feasible as conventional extracorporeal circuits. No differences in mortality, hospital stay or inflammation markers were observed.