Search

Contemporary care patterns/outcomes in high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients are unknown. This study sought to characterize the management of high-risk PE patients and identify factors associated with poor outcomes. A retrospective analysis of the PERT (Pulmonary Embolism Response Team) Consortium Registry was performed. Patients presenting with intermediate-risk PE, high-risk PE, and catastrophic PE (those with hemodynamic collapse) were identified. Patient characteristics were compared with chi-square testing for categorical covariates and Student's t -test for continuous covariates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations between clinical characteristics and outcomes in the high-risk population. Of 5,790 registry patients, 2,976 presented with intermediate-risk PE and 1,442 with high-risk PE. High-risk PE patients were more frequently treated with advanced therapies than intermediate-risk PE patients (41.9% vs 30.2%; P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality (20.6% vs 3.7%; P < 0.001) and major bleeding (10.5% vs. 3.5%; P < 0.001) were more common in high-risk PE. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated vasopressor use (OR: 4.56; 95% CI: 3.27-6.38; P < 0.01), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use (OR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.12-7.30; P = 0.03), identified clot-in-transit (OR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.13-4.52; P = 0.02), and malignancy (OR: = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.13-2.56; P = 0.01) as factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Catastrophic PE patients (n = 197 [13.7% of high-risk PE patients]) had higher in-hospital mortality (42.1% vs 17.2%; P < 0.001) than those presenting with noncatastrophic high-risk PE. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13.3% vs. 4.8% P < 0.001) and systemic thrombolysis (25% vs 11.3%; P < 0.001) were used more commonly in catastrophic PE. In the largest analysis of high-risk PE patients to date, mortality rates were high with the worst outcomes among patients with hemodynamic collapse. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides temporary mechanical circulatory support and simultaneous extracorporeal gas exchange for acute cardiorespiratory failure. By providing circulatory support, VA-ECMO gives treatments time to reach optimal efficacy or may be used as a bridge to a more durable mechanical solution for patients with acute cardiopulmonary failure. It is commonly used when a readily reversible etiology of decompensation is identified with very strict inclusion criteria for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation use. We present a unique case in which VA-ECMO/extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation was used after cardiac arrest with pulseless electrical activity in a patient with recurrent lymphoma of the left thigh with recent autologous stem cell transplant. • Coronary interventions and other therapeutic strategies in the setting of malignancy and pancytopenia require individualized, comprehensive, multidisciplinary approaches. • Patients with cancer who survive out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are less likely to receive postresuscitation treatment than patients without cancer. • When there is a potentially reversible cause of acute cardiopulmonary failure, VA-ECMO can provide temporary mechanical support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outcomes of patients requiring venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) vary greatly by etiology, but large studies that incorporate the spectrum of shock supported with ECMO are rare. The purpose of this study was to describe the etiology-related outcome of patients with shock supported with peripheral VA-ECMO. All consecutive adults with peripheral VA-ECMO between January 2015 and August 2018 at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital (Paris, France) were included in this retrospective observational study. The indication for VA-ECMO was cardiogenic shock. Rates of hospital death and neurological, renal, and pulmonary complications were evaluated according to etiology. Among 1,253 patients, hospital and 5-year survival rates were, respectively, 73.3% and 57.3% for primary graft failure, 58.6% and 54.0% for drug overdose, 53.2% and 45.3% for dilated cardiomyopathy, 51.6% and 50.0% for arrhythmic storm, 46.8% and 38.3% for massive pulmonary embolism, 44.4% and 42.4% for sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock, 37.9% and 32.9% for fulminant myocarditis, 37.3% and 31.5% for acute myocardial infarction, 34.6% and 33.3% for postcardiotomy excluding primary graft failure, 25.7% and 22.8% for other/unknown etiology, and 11.1% and 0.0% for refractory vasoplegia shock. Renal failure requiring hemodialysis developed in 50.0%, neurological complications in 16.0%, and hydrostatic pulmonary edema in 9.0%. Although the outcome differs depending on etiology, this difference is related more to the severity of the situation associated with the cause rather than the cause of the shock per se. Survival to 5 years varied by cause, which may reflect the natural course of the chronic disease and illustrates the need for long-term follow-up. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adults who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 can develop a multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-A), including fulminant myocarditis. Yet, several patients fail to meet MIS-A criteria, suggesting the existence of distinct phenotypes in fulminant COVID-19-related myocarditis.Objectives: This study sought to compare the characteristics and clinical outcome between patients with fulminant COVID-19-related myocarditis fulfilling MIS-A criteria (MIS-A+) or not (MIS-A-).Methods: A monocentric retrospective analysis of consecutive fulminant COVID-19-related myocarditis in a 26-bed intensive care unit (ICU).Results: Between March 2020 and June 2021, 38 patients required ICU admission (male 66%; mean age 32 ± 15 years) for suspected fulminant COVID-19-related myocarditis. In-ICU treatment for organ failure included dobutamine 79%, norepinephrine 60%, mechanical ventilation 50%, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation 42%, and renal replacement therapy 29%. In-hospital mortality was 13%. Twenty-five patients (66%) met the MIS-A criteria. MIS-A- patients compared with MIS-A+ patients were characterized by a shorter delay between COVID-19 symptoms onset and myocarditis, a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and a higher rate of in-ICU organ failure, and were more likely to require mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (92% vs 16%; P < 0.0001). In-hospital mortality was higher in MIS-A- patients (31% vs 4%). MIS-A+ had higher circulating levels of interleukin (IL)-22, IL-17, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), whereas MIS-A- had higher interferon-α2 (IFN-α2) and IL-8 levels. RNA polymerase III autoantibodies were present in 7 of 13 MIS-A- patients (54%) but in none of the MIS-A+ patients.Conclusion: MIS-A+ and MIS-A- fulminant COVID-19-related myocarditis patients have 2 distinct phenotypes with different clinical presentations, prognosis, and immunological profiles. Differentiating these 2 phenotypes is relevant for patients' management and further understanding of their pathophysiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 60-year-old woman with a past medical history of asthma presented with fulminant myocarditis 9 days after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 16 days after developing symptoms consistent with COVID-19. Her hospital course was complicated by the need for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ventricular arrhythmias, and pseudomonas bacteremia. She ultimately recovered and was discharged to home with normal left ventricular systolic function. Thereafter, she developed symptomatic ventricular tachycardia, for which she received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and antiarrhythmic drug therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) increases left ventricular (LV) afterload, potentially provoking LV distention and impairing recovery. LV mechanical unloading (MU) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) can prevent LV distension, potentially at the risk of more complications, and net clinical benefit remains uncertain.Objectives: This study aims to determine the association between MU and outcomes for patients undergoing VA-ECMO.Methods: The authors queried the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry for adults receiving peripheral VA-ECMO from 2010 to 2019 and stratified them by MU with IABP or pVAD. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included on-support mortality and complications during VA-ECMO.Results: Among 12,734 VA-ECMO patients, 3,399 (26.7%) received MU: 2,782 (82.9%) IABP and 580 (17.1%) pVAD. MU patients were older (age 56.3 vs 52.7 years) and, before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, more often required >2 vasopressors (41.7% vs 27.2%) and had respiratory (21.1% vs 15.9%), renal (24.6% vs 15.8%), and liver failure (4.4% vs 3.1%) (all P < 0.001). MU patients had lower in-hospital mortality (56.6% vs 59.3%, P = 0.006), which persisted in multivariable modeling (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.92; P < 0.001). MU was associated with more cannula site bleeding (aOR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.11-1.40; P < 0.001) and hemolysis (aOR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.03-1.57; P = 0.02). Compared to pVAD, MU patients with IABP had similar mortality (aOR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64-1.01; P = 0.06) and less medical bleeding (aOR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.31-0.64; P < 0.001), cannula site bleeding (aOR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.54-0.96; P = 0.03), and renal injury (aOR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.62-0.98; P = 0.03).Conclusions: Among adults receiving VA-ECMO, MU was associated with lower in-hospital mortality despite increased complications including hemolysis and cannulation site bleeding. Compared to pVAD, MU with IABP was associated with similar mortality and lower complication rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 2018 U.S. heart allocation system offers an accelerated pathway for heart transplantation to the most urgent patients.Objectives: This study sought to determine whether the new allocation system resulted in lower likelihood of candidate recovery.Methods: Adult patients waitlisted for heart transplantation with temporary mechanical circulatory support at the time of initial listing between 2010 and 2020 in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry were included. Competing events of heart transplantation, waitlist death or delisting for deteriorating condition, and delisting for improved condition (candidate recovery) were analyzed in the new vs old heart allocation system.Results: A total of 688 patients were waitlisted with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or a surgical nondischargeable biventricular assist device (status 1 or old 1A). Overall, 2,237 patients were waitlisted with an intra-aortic balloon pump, a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or a surgical nondischargeable LVAD (status 2 or old 1A). Patients waitlisted with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or a nondischargeable biventricular assist device had significantly shorter median waitlist times (5 vs 31 days), higher incidence for cardiac transplantation (81.5% vs 43.0%), and lower incidence of candidate recovery (1.5% vs 7.9%) in the new vs old heart allocation system (all P < 0.05). Patients waitlisted with an intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous or a nondischargeable LVAD also had significantly shorter median waitlist times (8 vs 35 days), higher incidence of transplantation (88.9% vs 64.9%), and lower incidence of candidate recovery (0.2% vs 1.6%) in the new vs old heart allocation system (all P < 0.05).Conclusions: Current practice of the new allocation system may not offer select temporary mechanical circulatory support patients the opportunity and adequate time to recover to the point of waitlist removal. Further research will determine which patients would benefit from urgent transplantation vs recovery strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]