Search

Background: PPHN is a common cause of neonatal respiratory failure and is still a serious condition and associated with high mortality., Objectives: To compare the demographic variables, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes in neonates with PHHN who underwent ECMO and survived compared to neonates with PHHN who underwent ECMO and died., Methods: We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and searched ProQuest, Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature for studies on the development of PPHN in neonates who underwent ECMO, published from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2023, with English language restriction., Results: Of the 5689 papers that were identified, 134 articles were included in the systematic review. Studies involving 1814 neonates with PPHN who were placed on ECMO were analyzed (1218 survived and 594 died). Neonates in the PPHN group who died had lower proportion of normal spontaneous vaginal delivery (6.4% vs 1.8%; p value > 0.05) and lower Apgar scores at 1 min and 5 min [i.e., low Apgar score: 1.5% vs 0.5%, moderately abnormal Apgar score: 10.3% vs 1.2% and reassuring Apgar score: 4% vs 2.3%; p value = 0.039] compared to those who survived. Neonates who had PPHN and died had higher proportion of medical comorbidities such as omphalocele (0.7% vs 4.7%), systemic hypotension (1% vs 2.5%), infection with Herpes simplex virus (0.4% vs 2.2%) or Bordetella pertussis (0.7% vs 2%); p = 0.042. Neonates with PPHN in the death group were more likely to present due to congenital diaphragmatic hernia (25.5% vs 47.3%), neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (4.2% vs 13.5%), meconium aspiration syndrome (8% vs 12.1%), pneumonia (1.6% vs 8.4%), sepsis (1.5% vs 8.2%) and alveolar capillary dysplasia with misalignment of pulmonary veins (0.1% vs 4.4%); p = 0.019. Neonates with PPHN who died needed a longer median time of mechanical ventilation (15 days, IQR 10 to 27 vs. 10 days, IQR 7 to 28; p = 0.024) and ECMO use (9.2 days, IQR 3.9 to 13.5 vs. 6 days, IQR 3 to 12.5; p = 0.033), and a shorter median duration of hospital stay (23 days, IQR 12.5 to 46 vs. 58.5 days, IQR 28.2 to 60.7; p = 0.000) compared to the neonates with PPHN who survived. ECMO-related complications such as chylothorax (1% vs 2.7%), intracranial bleeding (1.2% vs 1.7%) and catheter-related infections (0% vs 0.3%) were more frequent in the group of neonates with PPHN who died (p = 0.031)., Conclusion: ECMO in the neonates with PPHN who failed supportive cardiorespiratory care and conventional therapies has been successfully utilized with a neonatal survival rate of 67.1%. Mortality in neonates with PPHN who underwent ECMO was highest in cases born via the caesarean delivery mode or neonates who had lower Apgar scores at birth. Fatality rate in neonates with PPHN who underwent ECMO was the highest in patients with higher rate of specific medical comorbidities (omphalocele, systemic hypotension and infection with Herpes simplex virus or Bordetella pertussis) or cases who had PPHN due to higher rate of specific etiologies (congenital diaphragmatic hernia, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and meconium aspiration syndrome). Neonates with PPHN who died may need a longer time of mechanical ventilation and ECMO use and a shorter duration of hospital stay; and may experience higher frequency of ECMO-related complications (chylothorax, intracranial bleeding and catheter-related infections) in comparison with the neonates with PPHN who survived., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection is extremely rare but can occur. T-cell recognition of antigen is the primary and central event that leads to the cascade of events that result in rejection of a transplanted organ., Objectives: To describe the results of a systematic review for solid organ rejections following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for studies on the incidence of solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection, published from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2022, with English language restriction., Results: One hundred thirty-six cases from fifty-two articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review (56 solid organs rejected post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and 40 solid organs rejected following COVID-19 infection). Cornea rejection (44 cases) was the most frequent organ observed post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and following COVID-19 infection, followed by kidney rejection (36 cases), liver rejection (12 cases), lung rejection (2 cases), heart rejection (1 case) and pancreas rejection (1 case). The median or mean patient age ranged from 23 to 94 years across the studies. The majority of the patients were male ( n = 51, 53.1%) and were of White (Caucasian) ( n = 51, 53.7%) and Hispanic ( n = 15, 15.8%) ethnicity. A total of fifty-six solid organ rejections were reported post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [Pfizer-BioNTech ( n = 31), Moderna ( n = 14), Oxford Uni-AstraZeneca ( n = 10) and Sinovac-CoronaVac ( n = 1)]. The median time from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to organ rejection was 13.5 h (IQR, 3.2-17.2), while the median time from COVID-19 infection to organ rejection was 14 h (IQR, 5-21). Most patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term allograft rejection therapy [graft success ( n = 70, 85.4%), graft failure ( n = 12, 14.6%), survived ( n = 90, 95.7%) and died ( n = 4, 4.3%)]., Conclusion: The reported evidence of solid organ rejections post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COIVD-19 infection should not discourage vaccination against this worldwide pandemic. The number of reported cases is relatively small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred, and the protective benefits offered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as a rescue strategy in patients with severe with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there has been little evidence of its efficacy., Objectives: To describe the effect of ECMO rescue therapy on patient-important outcomes in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2., Methods: A case series study was conducted for the laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients who were admitted to the ICUs of 22 Saudi hospitals, between March 1, 2020, and October 30, 2020, by reviewing patient's medical records prospectively., Results: ECMO use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (40.2% vs. 48.9%; p = 0.000); lower COVID-19 virological cure (41.3% vs 14.1%, p = 0.000); and longer hospitalization (20.2 days vs 29.1 days; p = 0.000), ICU stay (12.6 vs 26 days; p = 0.000) and mechanical ventilation use (14.2 days vs 22.4 days; p = 0.000) compared to non-ECMO group. Also, there was a high number of patients with septic shock (19.6%) and multiple organ failure (10.9%); and more complications occurred at any time during hospitalization [pneumothorax (5% vs 29.3%, p = 0.000), bleeding requiring blood transfusion (7.1% vs 38%, p = 0.000), pulmonary embolism (6.4% vs 15.2%, p = 0.016), and gastrointestinal bleeding (3.3% vs 8.7%, p = 0.017)] in the ECMO group. However, PaO 2 was significantly higher in the 72-h post-ECMO initiation group and PCO 2 was significantly lower in the 72-h post-ECMO start group than those in the 12-h pre-ECMO group (62.9 vs. 70 mmHg, p = 0.002 and 61.8 vs. 51 mmHg, p = 0.042, respectively)., Conclusion: Following the use of ECMO, the mortality rate of patients and length of ICU and hospital stay were not improved. However, these findings need to be carefully interpreted, as most of our cohort patients were relatively old and had multiple severe comorbidities. Future randomized trials, although challenging to conduct, are highly needed to confirm or dispute reported observations., (© 2021. The Author(s).)