Efficacy of proning in acute respiratory distress syndrome on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Objectives: Proning patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been associated with increased survival, although few data exist evaluating the safety and feasibility of proning patients with ARDS on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods: A single-institution retrospective review of all patients with ARDS placed on ECMO between March 1 and May 31, 2020, was performed. All proning events were evaluated for complications, as well as change in compliance, sweep, oxygenation, and flow. The primary outcome of this study was the rate major morbidity associated with proning while on ECMO. Results: In total, 30 patients were placed on ECMO for ARDS, with 12 patients (40%) proned while on ECMO. A total of 83 proning episodes occurred, with a median of 7 per patient (interquartile range, 3-9). No ECMO cannula-associated bleeding, cannula displacement, or endotracheal tune dislodgements occurred (0%). Oropharyngeal bleeding occurred twice (50%). Four patients were proned with chest tubes in place, and none had complications (0%). Lung compliance improved after proning in 70 events (84%), from a mean of 15.4 mL/mm Hg preproning to 20.6 mL/mm Hg postproning (P < .0001). Sweep requirement decreased in 36 events (43%). Oxygenation improved in 63 events (76%), from a mean partial pressure of oxygen of 86 preproning to 103 postproning (P < .0001). Mean ECMO flow was unchanged. Conclusions: Proning in patients with ARDS on ECMO is safe with an associated improvement in lung mechanics. With careful planning and coordination, these data support the practice of appropriately proning patients with severe ARDS, even if they are on ECMO.

One-Year Outcomes With Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support for Severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used in patients in whom conventional mechanical ventilatory support has failed. To date, published data have focused on survival from ECMO and survival to discharge. In addition to survival to discharge, this study reports 1-year follow-up data for patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review of all patients with severe COVID-19 who were cannulated for VV-ECMO between March 10, 2020 and May 1, 2020 was performed. A multidisciplinary ECMO team evaluated, selected, and managed patients with ECMO support. The primary outcome of this study was survival to discharge. Available 1-year follow-up data are also reported. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were supported with VV-ECMO, and 27 patients (90%) survived to discharge. All patients were discharged home or to acute rehabilitation on room air, except for 1 patient (3.7%), who required supplemental oxygen therapy. At a median follow-up of 10.8 months (interquartile range [IQR], 8.9-14.4 months) since ECMO cannulation, survival was 86.7%, including 1 patient who underwent lung transplantation. Of the patients discharged from the hospital, 44.4% (12/27) had pulmonary function testing, with a median percent predicted forced expiratory volume of 100% (IQR, 91%-110%). For survivors, a 6-minute walk test was performed in 59.3% (16/27), with a median value of 350 m (IQR, 286-379 m). CONCLUSIONS: A well-defined patient selection and management strategy of VV-ECMO support in patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in exceptional survival to discharge that was sustained at 1-year after ECMO cannulation.

Early experience with donation after circulatory death heart transplantation using normothermic regional perfusion in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study sought to evaluate the feasibility of our donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation protocol using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for normothermic regional reperfusion (NRP). METHODS: Suitable local DCD candidates were transferred to our institution. Life support was withdrawn in the operating room (OR). On declaration of circulatory death, sternotomy was performed, and the aortic arch vessels were ligated. CPB was initiated with left ventricular venting. The heart was reperfused, with correction of any metabolic abnormalities. CPB was weaned, and cardiac function was assessed at 30-minute intervals. If accepted, the heart was procured with cold preservation and transplanted into recipients in a nearby OR. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and January 2021, a total of 8 DCD heart transplants were performed: 6 isolated hearts, 1 heart-lung, and 1 combined heart and kidney. All donor hearts were successfully resuscitated and weaned from CPB without inotropic support. Average lactate and potassium levels decreased from 9.39 ± 1.47 mmol/L to 7.20 ± 0.13 mmol/L and 7.49 ± 1.32 mmol/L to 4.36 ± 0.67 mmol/L, respectively. Post-transplantation, the heart-lung transplant recipient required venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for primary lung graft dysfunction but was decannulated on postoperative day 3 and recovered uneventfully. All other recipients required minimal inotropic support without mechanical circulatory support. Survival was 100% with a median follow-up of 304 days (interquartile range, 105-371 days). CONCLUSIONS: DCD heart transplantation outcomes have been excellent. Our DCD protocol is adoptable for more widespread use and will increase donor heart availability in the United States.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in Severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a worldwide pandemic with a high mortality rate among patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The limited data that exist regarding the utility of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in these critically ill patients show poor overall outcomes. This report describes our institutional practice regarding the application and management of ECMO support for patients with COVID-19 and reports promising early outcomes. METHODS: All critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 evaluated for ECMO support from March 10, 2020, to April 24, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were evaluated for ECMO support based on a partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 150 mm Hg or pH of less than 7.25 with a partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide exceeding 60 mm Hg with no life-limiting comorbidities. Patients were cannulated at bedside and were managed with protective lung ventilation, early tracheostomy, bronchoscopies, and proning, as clinically indicated. RESULTS: Among 321 patients intubated for COVID-19, 77 patients (24%) were evaluated for ECMO support, and 27 patients (8.4%) were placed on ECMO. All patients were supported with venovenous ECMO. Current survival is 96.3%, with only 1 death to date in more than 350 days of total ECMO support. Thirteen patients (48.1%) remain on ECMO support, and 13 patients (48.1%) have been successfully decannulated. Seven patients (25.9%) have been discharged from the hospital. Six patients (22.2%) remain in the hospital, of which 4 are on room air. No health care workers who participated in ECMO cannulation developed symptoms of or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The early outcomes presented here suggest that the judicious use of ECMO support in severe COVID-19 may be clinically beneficial.

Comparison of device-specific adverse event profiles between Impella platforms.

BACKGROUND: The Impella (Abiomed) ventricular support system is a family of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices used to treat patients with cardiogenic shock, acute cardiogenic decompensation, and for high-risk percutaneous or surgical revascularization. These devices include the percutaneously implanted 2.5/cardiac power (CP) and the surgically implanted 5.0/left direct (LD). Despite the beneficial effects and increased usage of these devices, data to assess adverse outcomes and guide clinician decision-making between the Impella CP and 5.0/LD are limited. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 91 consecutive patients who required at least 24 h of Impella support, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Groups were stratified based on either initial Impella CP or 5.0/LD placement. Clinical outcomes and in-hospital complications were compared. RESULTS: Impella CP was implanted in 66 patients (mean age: 61 ± 15 years, male 71.2%) and Impella 5.0/LD was implanted in 25 patients (mean age: 62 ± 9 years, male 84.0%). There was greater stability of device position (p = .033), less incidence of hemolysis (p < .001), and less frequent need for additional MCS (p = .001) in patients implanted with the Impella 5.0/LD compared with Impella CP in this study cohort. Patients with Impella 5.0/LD were more likely to survive from Impella and survive to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that for patients who require temporary MCS for more than 24 h, the Impella 5.0/LD may have a more favorable device-specific adverse profile compared with the Impella CP.

Impact of concomitant mitral valve repair for severe mitral regurgitation at the time of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device insertion.

OBJECTIVES: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is common in patients with end-stage heart failure. We assessed the effect of performing concomitant mitral valve repair during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation in patients with severe preoperative MR. METHODS: We performed a single-centre, retrospective review of all patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation between December 1999 and December 2013 (n = 469). Patients with severe preoperative MR (n = 78) were identified and then stratified according to whether they underwent concomitant valve repair. Univariate and survival analyses were performed, and multivariable regression was used to determine predictors of survival. RESULTS: Of the 78 patients with severe MR, 21 underwent valve repair at the time of CF-LVAD implantation (repair group) and 57 did not (non-repair group). A comparison of the 2 groups showed significant differences between groups: INTERMACS I 16.985 vs 9.52%, (P = 0.039), cardiopulmonary bypass time 82.09 vs 109.4 min (P = 0.0042) and the use of HeartMate II 63.16 vs 100% (P = 0.001). Survival analysis suggested trends towards improved survival and a lower incidence of heart failure-related readmissions in the repair group. Multivariable regression analysis showed no significant independent predictors of survival (mitral valve repair: odds ratio 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.5; P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of statistical significance, trends towards improved survival and a lower incidence of heart failure events suggest that mitral valve repair may be beneficial in patients undergoing CF-LVAD implantation. Given the known relationship between severe MR and mortality, further study is encouraged to confirm the value of mitral valve repair in these patients.