Search

Objective: Myocardial damage occurs in up to 25% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. While veno-venous extracorporeal life support (V-V ECLS) is used as respiratory support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be required for severe cardiac dysfunction. This systematic review summarizes the available literature regarding MCS use rates, disease drivers for MCS initiation, and MCS outcomes in COVID-19 patients., Methods: PubMed/EMBASE were searched until October 14, 2021. Articles including adults receiving ECLS for COVID-19 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of MCS use. Secondary outcomes included mortality at follow-up, ECLS conversion rate, intubation-to-cannulation time, time on ECLS, cardiac diseases, use of inotropes, and vasopressors., Results: Twenty-eight observational studies (comprising both ECLS-only populations and ECLS patients as part of larger populations) included 4218 COVID-19 patients (females: 28.8%; median age: 54.3 years, 95%CI: 50.7-57.8) of whom 2774 (65.8%) required ECLS with the majority (92.7%) on V-V ECLS, 4.7% on veno-arterial ECLS and/or Impella, and 2.6% on other ECLS. Acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest were reported in 7.8%, 9.7%, and 6.6% of patients, respectively. Vasopressors were used in 37.2%. Overall, 3.1% of patients required an ECLS change from V-V ECLS to MCS for heart failure, myocarditis, or myocardial infarction. The median ECLS duration was 15.9 days (95%CI: 13.9-16.3), with an overall survival of 54.6% and 28.1% in V-V ECLS and MCS patients. One study reported 61.1% survival with oxy-right ventricular assist device., Conclusion: MCS use for cardiocirculatory compromise has been reported in 7.3% of COVID-19 patients requiring ECLS, which is a lower percentage compared to the incidence of any severe cardiocirculatory complication. Based on the poor survival rates, further investigations are warranted to establish the most appropriated indications and timing for MCS in COVID-19., (© 2022 The Authors. Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are prone to pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH) and right ventricular pressure overload due to severe bilateral infiltrates, high ventilation pressures, persistent hypoxemia, pulmonary fibrosis, and/or pulmonary embolism. In patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), this potentially leads to increased recirculation. In the current report, the authors present a case in which continuous inhaled nitric oxide (iNO)-enriched ventilation was effective in terms of PAH and recirculation reduction in a COVID-19 patient on veno-venous ECMO., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To report and compare the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients on ECMO., Methods: We performed an international retrospective study of COVID-19 patients on ECMO from 13 intensive care units from March 1 to April 30, 2020. Demographic data, ECMO characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was to assess the complication rate and 28-day mortality; the secondary outcome was to compare patient and ECMO characteristics between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and non-COVID-19 related ARDS patients on ECMO (non-COVID-19; January 1, 2018 until July 31, 2019)., Results: During the study period 71 COVID-19 patients received ECMO, mostly veno-venous, for a median duration of 13 days (IQR 7-20). ECMO was initiated at 5 days (IQR 3-10) following invasive mechanical ventilation. Median PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio prior to initiation of ECMO was similar in COVID-19 patients (58 mmHg [IQR 46-76]) and non-COVID-19 patients (53 mmHg [IQR 44-66]), the latter consisting of 48 patients. 28-day mortality was 37% in COVID-19 patients and 27% in non-COVID-19 patients. However, Kaplan-Meier curves showed that after a 100-day follow-up this non-significant difference resolves. Non-surviving COVID-19 patients were more acidotic prior to initiation ECMO, had a shorter ECMO run and fewer received muscle paralysis compared to survivors., Conclusions: No significant differences in outcomes were found between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and non-COVID-19 ARDS patients on ECMO. This suggests that ECMO could be considered as a supportive therapy in case of refractory respiratory failure in COVID-19.