Search

Introduction Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) as bridge to recovery in critically ill COVID-19 continues to be commonly utilized strategy in cases with persistent respiratory failure refractory to traditional ventilation support Case Report We report 5 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection (SARS-CoV-2) who were treated with ECMO (Table 1). All 5 cases presented with fever, cough and shortness of breath and a positive nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 on admission. Case 1, 2, 3 and 5 patients were hypoxemic with saturation less than 90% on admission and decompensated rapidly, whereas Case 4 decompensated after day 14. Mechanical ventilation failed to provide adequate oxygenation in all 5 cases; case 2,3 and 5 were started on recruitment measures with proning while it was not possible for case 1 owing to morbid obesity. Proning was not possible in the case 4 as patient became severely hypoxemic while patient was undergoing mechanical thrombectomy. The case 1-4 remained on ECMO for 19, 17, 17 and 2 days respectively. All except case 2 had improvement in APACHEII and SOFA score after ECMO initiation. All 5 patients had elevated inflammatory markers of serum ferritin, D-dimer, Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP) which trended down after a few days of ECMO initiation All 5 patients received high dose steroids during their stay in the ICU. Case 4 and 5 passed away after compassionate extubation. Case 1-3 had prolonged hospital course with complication of hospital acquired pneumonia requiring multiple courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Summary Our observational report of 5 patients reports the use of ECMO in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 with ARDS and difficult to maintain saturation despite mechanical ventilation and proning with recovery for 3 patients. However, given the lack of ECMO centers; this is not a readily available option. Further studies are warranted to investigate the role of ECMO in SARRS-CoV-2 and careful identification of appropriate candidates.

Traditionally ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease is treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to culprit lesion only. The benefit of multivessel (MV) PCI among STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock is unclear.PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database were searched from 1996 to 2019, for studies of patients with STEMI without cardiogenic shock, who underwent PCI. Only randomized controlled trials comparing culprit PCI to MV PCI vs culprit vessel PCI were included for pairwise meta-analysis. All-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, reinfarction, revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed for outcome variables.Nine randomized controlled trials contributed 6930 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Three thousand three hundred seventy-six underwent MV PCI, and 3554 underwent culprit PCI. Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in all-cause mortality. MV PCI had a lower risk of cardiac mortality, reinfarction, MACE and repeat revascularization compared to culprit PCI (P values0.05). TSA showed futility for further trials to detect all-cause mortality benefit and lack of firm evidence of benefit in cardiac mortality and re-infarction, but firm evidence of benefit in revascularization and MACE.In conclusion, MV PCI strategy was beneficial in reducing cardiac mortality, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and MACE but there was no all-cause mortality benefit when compared to culprit only PCI strategy. Evidence for benefit in cardiac mortality and re-infarction is not robust per TSA.