Search

Background: Some patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) require prolonged mechanical ventilation. An early tracheostomy strategy while on ECMO has appeared to be beneficial for these patients. This study aims to explore the safety of tracheostomy in ECMO patients., Methods: This is a retrospective observational single-center study., Results: Hundred and nine patients underwent tracheostomy (76 percutaneous and 33 surgical) during V-V ECMO support over an 8-year period. Patients with a percutaneous tracheostomy showed a significantly shorter ECMO duration [25.5 (17.3-40.1) vs 37.2 (26.5-53.2) days, p = 0.013] and a shorter ECMO-to-tracheostomy time [13.3 (8.5-19.7) vs 27.8 (16.3-36.9) days, p < 0.001] compared to those who underwent a surgical approach. There was no difference between the two strategies regarding both major and minor/no bleeding (p = 0.756). There was no difference in survival rate between patients who underwent percutaneous or surgical tracheostomy (p = 0.173). Patients who underwent an early tracheostomy (within 10 days from ECMO insertion) showed a significantly shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) and a shorter duration of V-V ECMO support (p < 0.001). Our series includes 24 patients affected by COVID-19, who did not show significantly higher rates of major bleeding when compared to non-COVID-19 patients (p = 0.297). Within the COVID-19 subgroup, there was no difference in major bleeding rates between surgical and percutaneous approach (p = 1.0)., Conclusions: Percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy during ECMO have a similar safety profile in terms of bleeding risk and mortality. Percutaneous tracheostomy may favor a shorter duration of ECMO support and hospital stay and can be considered a safe alternative to surgical tracheostomy, even in COVID-19 patients, if relevant clinical expertise is available., (© 2023 The Authors. Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: Early studies of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19 have revealed similar outcomes to historical cohorts. Changes in the disease and treatments have led to differences in the patients supported on venovenous ECMO in the first and second waves. We aimed to compare these two groups in both the acute and follow-up phase., Design: Retrospective single-center cohort study comparing mortality at censoring date (November 30, 2021) and decannulation, patient characteristics, complications and lung function and quality of life (QOL-by European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version) at first follow-up in patients supported on venovenous ECMO between wave 1 and wave 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic., Setting: Critical care department of a severe acute respiratory failure service., Patients: Patients supported on ECMO for COVID-19 between wave 1 (March 17, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and wave 2 (January 9, 2020, to May 25, 2021)., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: One hundred twenty-three patients were included in our analysis. Survival at censoring date (χ 2 , 6.35; p = 0.012) and decannulation (90.4% vs 70.0%; p < 0.001) was significantly lower in the second wave, while duration of ECMO run was longer (12.0 d [18.0-30.0 d] vs 29.5 d [15.5-58.3 d]; p = 0.005). Wave 2 patients had longer application of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) prior to ECMO and a higher frequency of barotrauma. Patient age and NIV use were independently associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.07 [1.01-1.14]; p = 0.025 and 3.37 [1.12-12.60]; p = 0.043, respectively). QOL and lung function apart from transfer coefficient of carbon monoxide corrected for hemoglobin was similar at follow-up across the waves., Conclusions: Most patients with COVID-19 supported on ECMO in both waves survived in the short and longer term. At follow-up patients had similar lung function and QOL across the two waves. This suggests that ECMO has an ongoing role in the management of a carefully selected group of patients with COVID-19., Competing Interests: Dr. Desai disclosed that he is a course tutor for Boehringer Ingelheim, an Interstitial Lung Disease Courses Oversight Committee Group Member for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK3196165 contRAst), and a phase III trial External Expert Steering Committee Member for AstraZeneca (Trastuzumab deruxtecan phase IIIb/IV trial). Dr. Doyle received funding from Baxter. Dr. Jagger received funding from Aga Kahn University Hospital Nairobi. Dr. Patel received funding from Novartis, StromaBio, Gilead, Apogenix, and Nitrase Therapeutics; he declares grants or funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Mermaid Care A/C, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brompton & Harefield Charity, European Commission, Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Imperial College London Covid Fund. Drs. Patel and Ledot received funding from InspiraTech. Dr. Singh received funding from Merck Sharpe Dohme, Ambu AS, Fisher and Paykel, and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Competing Interests: None declared.

A significant proportion of patients with COVID-19 develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with high risk of death. The efficacy of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) for COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes, unlike in other viral pneumonias, is unknown. In this study, we aimed to compare the 6 month mortality of patients receiving VV-ECMO support for COVID-19 with a historical viral ARDS cohort. Fifty-three consecutive patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted for VV-ECMO to the Royal Brompton Hospital between March 17, 2020 and May 30, 2020 were identified. Mortality, patient characteristics, complications, and ECMO parameters were then compared to a historical cohort of patients with non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia. At 6 months survival was significantly higher in the COVID-19 than in the non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia cohort (84.9% vs. 66.0%, p = 0.040). Patients with COVID-19 had an increased Murray score (3.50 vs. 3.25, p = 0.005), a decreased burden of organ dysfunction (sequential organ failure score score [8.76 vs. 10.42, p = 0.004]), an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism (69.8% vs. 24.5%, p < 0.001) and in those who survived to decannulation longer ECMO runs (19 vs. 11 days, p = 0.001). Our results suggest that survival in patients supported with EMCO for COVID-19 are at least as good as those treated for non-COVID-19 viral ARDS., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © ASAIO 2021.)

Aims: Comprehensive echocardiography assessment of right ventricular (RV) impairment has not been reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We detail the specific phenotype and clinical associations of RV impairment in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)., Methods: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) measures of RV function were collected in critically unwell patients for associations with clinical, ventilatory and laboratory data., Results: Ninety patients (25.6% female), mean age 52.0 ± 10.8 years, veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VVECMO) (42.2%) were studied. A significantly higher proportion of patients were identified as having RV dysfunction by RV fractional area change (FAC) (72.0%,95% confidence interval (CI) 61.0-81.0) and RV velocity time integral (VTI) (86.4%, 95 CI 77.3-93.2) than by tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (23.8%, 95 CI 16.0-33.9), RVS' (11.9%, 95% CI 6.6-20.5) or RV free wall strain (FWS) (35.3%, 95% CI 23.6-49.0). RV VTI correlated strongly with RV FAC (p ≤ 0.01). Multivariate regression demonstrated independent associations of RV FAC with NTpro-BNP and PVR. RV-PA coupling correlated with PVR (univariate p < 0.01), as well as RVEDAi (p < 0.01), and RVESAi (p < 0.01), and was associated with P/F ratio (p 0.026), PEEP (p 0.025), and ALT (p 0.028)., Conclusions: Severe COVID-19 ARDS is associated with a specific phenotype of RV radial impairment with sparing of longitudinal function. Clinicians should avoid interpretation of RV health purely on long-axis parameters in these patients. RV-PA coupling potentially provides important additional information above standard measures of RV performance in this cohort., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Clinical and epidemiologic data in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have accrued rapidly since the outbreak, but few address the underlying pathophysiology.Objectives: To ascertain the physiologic, hematologic, and imaging basis of lung injury in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods: Clinical, physiologic, and laboratory data were collated. Radiologic (computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography [n = 39] and dual-energy CT [DECT, n = 20]) studies were evaluated: observers quantified CT patterns (including the extent of abnormal lung and the presence and extent of dilated peripheral vessels) and perfusion defects on DECT. Coagulation status was assessed using thromboelastography.Measurements and Results: In 39 consecutive patients (male:female, 32:7; mean age, 53 ± 10 yr [range, 29-79 yr]; Black and minority ethnic, n = 25 [64%]), there was a significant vascular perfusion abnormality and increased physiologic dead space (dynamic compliance, 33.7 ± 14.7 ml/cm H2O; Murray lung injury score, 3.14 ± 0.53; mean ventilatory ratios, 2.6 ± 0.8) with evidence of hypercoagulability and fibrinolytic "shutdown". The mean CT extent (±SD) of normally aerated lung, ground-glass opacification, and dense parenchymal opacification were 23.5 ± 16.7%, 36.3 ± 24.7%, and 42.7 ± 27.1%, respectively. Dilated peripheral vessels were present in 21/33 (63.6%) patients with at least two assessable lobes (including 10/21 [47.6%] with no evidence of acute pulmonary emboli). Perfusion defects on DECT (assessable in 18/20 [90%]) were present in all patients (wedge-shaped, n = 3; mottled, n = 9; mixed pattern, n = 6).Conclusions: Physiologic, hematologic, and imaging data show not only the presence of a hypercoagulable phenotype in severe COVID-19 pneumonia but also markedly impaired pulmonary perfusion likely caused by pulmonary angiopathy and thrombosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]