Search

Background: Continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CF -LVAD) improve survival in patients with advanced heart failure, but confer risk of bleeding complications. Serotonergic antidepressants (SA) are commonly used in heart failure patients receiving LVADs, but their inhibitory effect on platelet function may contribute to bleeding risk., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of LVAD patients at our institution from 2016 -2019 comparing patients treated with SA after LVAD to those without SA. Demographic and clinical variables related to bleeding were collected on discharge from index hospitalization for CF-LVAD implantation and on admission for any bleeding event. The primary endpoint was incidence of bleeding requiring hospitalization after discharge. Secondary endpoints included overall number of admissions for bleeding, time to first hospitalization for a bleeding event, and incidence rate of hospitalizations for bleeding per patient year., Results: 100 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. A total of 5 patients without a history of SA use and 31 patients who were prescribed SA after CF -LVAD implant were readmitted for a bleeding event after initial implant hospitalization (15% vs 46%, p = 0.004). Bleeding rate per person year (0.3 vs 0.61, p = 0.01) were significantly less in patients without SA use. Age-adjusted multivariable analysis found SA use to be associated with a hospitalization for bleeding (HR 2.3, 95% CI 0.99 -5.4). The higher incidence of hospitalization for bleeding was driven by non-gastrointestinal anatomical sites (6% vs 28%, p = 0.02) with a HR 7.7 (95% CI 0.96 -62)., Conclusions: SA treatment after CF-LVAD implantation was associated with an increased risk for bleeding complications requiring hospitalization, particularly non-gastrointestinal bleeding., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of patients with COVID-19 has changed and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased. We aimed to examine patient selection, treatments, outcomes, and ECMO centre characteristics over the course of the pandemic to date., Methods: We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and COVID-19 Addendum to compare three groups of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥16 years). At early-adopting centres-ie, those using ECMO support for COVID-19 throughout 2020-we compared patients who started ECMO on or before May 1, 2020 (group A1), and between May 2 and Dec 31, 2020 (group A2). Late-adopting centres were those that provided ECMO for COVID-19 only after May 1, 2020 (group B). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality in a time-to-event analysis assessed 90 days after ECMO initiation. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to compare the patient and centre-level adjusted relative risk of mortality among the groups., Findings: In 2020, 4812 patients with COVID-19 received ECMO across 349 centres within 41 countries. For early-adopting centres, the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO initiation was 36·9% (95% CI 34·1-39·7) in patients who started ECMO on or before May 1 (group A1) versus 51·9% (50·0-53·8) after May 1 (group A2); at late-adopting centres (group B), it was 58·9% (55·4-62·3). Relative to patients in group A2, group A1 patients had a lower adjusted relative risk of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO (hazard ratio 0·82 [0·70-0·96]), whereas group B patients had a higher adjusted relative risk (1·42 [1·17-1·73])., Interpretation: Mortality after ECMO for patients with COVID-19 worsened during 2020. These findings inform the role of ECMO in COVID-19 for patients, clinicians, and policy makers., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RPB is the ELSO Registry chair. GM, MLP, CMS, and DB are on the ELSO board of directors. MLP is the current president of ELSO and DB is the president-elect of ELSO. DB also chairs the executive committee for the International ECMO Network. PSB has received funding from ELSO for statistical analysis related and unrelated to this study. CMS receives payment from ELSO in her role as chief executive officer of ELSO. RPB, CA, and EF are members of the ELSO Steering Committee. RL and AC are past members of the European ELSO Steering Committee. ASS chairs the Scientific Oversight Committee of the International ECMO Network. RPB reports grants from the US National Institutes of Health (R01 HL153519, R01 HD015434, and K12 HL138039). AC reports speaking fees from Baxter, Getinge, and Fresenius, unrelated to the submitted work. EF reports consulting fees from ALung Technologies and Vasomune; speaking fees from Getinge; and fees for Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board participation from Baxter and Boehringer-Ingelheim. KH reports unpaid consulting work with Abbott Vascular. RL reports research support from Getinge; consulting fees from Getinge, Livanova, and Medtronic; and honoraria for lectures from Getinge and Livanova, unrelated to the submitted work. TJI is employed by the US Government. ASS reports consulting fees from Baxter and Xenios, unrelated to the submitted work. DB reports grants from ALung Technologies, and medical advisory board relationships with Baxter (past), Xenios, Abiomed, Cellenkos, Medtronic, and Hemovent, unrelated to the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple major health organisations recommend the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, initial reports of ECMO use in patients with COVID-19 described very high mortality and there have been no large, international cohort studies of ECMO for COVID-19 reported to date., Methods: We used data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry to characterise the epidemiology, hospital course, and outcomes of patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed COVID-19 who had ECMO support initiated between Jan 16 and May 1, 2020, at 213 hospitals in 36 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital death in a time-to-event analysis assessed at 90 days after ECMO initiation. We applied a multivariable Cox model to examine whether patient and hospital factors were associated with in-hospital mortality., Findings: Data for 1035 patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO support were included in this study. Of these, 67 (6%) remained hospitalised, 311 (30%) were discharged home or to an acute rehabilitation centre, 101 (10%) were discharged to a long-term acute care centre or unspecified location, 176 (17%) were discharged to another hospital, and 380 (37%) died. The estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 37·4% (95% CI 34·4-40·4). Mortality was 39% (380 of 968) in patients with a final disposition of death or hospital discharge. The use of ECMO for circulatory support was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1·89, 95% CI 1·20-2·97). In the subset of patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory (venovenous) ECMO and characterised as having acute respiratory distress syndrome, the estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 38·0% (95% CI 34·6-41·5)., Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO, both estimated mortality 90 days after ECMO and mortality in those with a final disposition of death or discharge were less than 40%. These data from 213 hospitals worldwide provide a generalisable estimate of ECMO mortality in the setting of COVID-19., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to compare the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with and without cardiogenic shock (CS) or cardiac arrest (CA) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: Patients with STEMI complicated by CS or CA are underrepresented in STEMI registries., Methods: Consecutive patients with STEMI or new left bundle branch block within 24 h of symptom onset were included in a regional STEMI program comprising a PCI center (Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital), 11 hospitals <60 miles from PCI center (zone 1), and 19 hospitals 60 to 210 miles from PCI center (zone 2). No patients were excluded. Patients were stratified based on the presence (+) or absence (-) of CS or CA before PCI. Patients with CA were further classified based on initial rhythm. Primary outcomes were in-hospital and 5-year mortality., Results: Between March 2003 and December 2014, 4,511 STEMI patients were included in the regional program, including 398 (9%) with CS and 499 (11%) with CA. Hospital mortality was: CS+ and CA+, 44%; CS+ and CA-, 23%; CS- and CA+, 19%; and CS- and CA-, 2% (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival probability for CS+ and CA+ patients was 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.76) and 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 0.93), respectively (p < 0.01). Compared with patients with shockable rhythms, CA patients with nonshockable rhythms had significantly lower odds of survival at hospital discharge and at 5 years (both p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The combination of CS and CA significantly increases short-term mortality in patients with STEMI. After 5 years of follow-up, CS patients remained at high risk of fatal events, whereas the prognosis of CA patients was determined by initial rhythm at presentation., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)