RESUMO
Thromboembolism (TE), including venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial TE, arterial ischemic stroke (AIS), and myocardial infarction (MI), is considered a relatively rare complication in the pediatric population. Yet, the incidence is rising, especially in hospitalized children. The vast majority of pediatric TE occurs in the setting of at least one identifiable risk factor. Most recently, acute COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) have demonstrated an increased risk for TE development. The mainstay for the management pediatric TE has been anticoagulation. Thrombolytic therapy is employed more frequently in adult patients with ample data supporting its use. The data for thrombolysis in pediatric patients is more limited, but the utilization of this therapy is becoming more commonplace in tertiary care pediatric hospitals. Understanding the data on thrombolysis use in pediatric TE and the involved risks is critical before initiating one of these therapies. In this paper, we present the case of an adolescent male with acute fulminant myocarditis and cardiogenic shock likely secondary to MIS-C requiring extracorporeal life support (ECLS) who developed an extensive thrombus burden that was successfully resolved utilizing four simultaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) infusions in addition to a review of the literature on the use of thrombolytic therapy in children.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Outcomes for patients with oncologic disease and/or after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) requiring intensive care unit admission have improved, but indications for and outcomes after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support in this population are poorly characterized. PROCEDURE: We analyzed data from consecutive patients < 18 years with oncologic disease and/or after HSCT reported to a pediatric ECMO registry by nine pediatric centers in the United States between 2011 and 2018. RESULTS: We identified 18 ECMO patients with oncologic disease and/or HSCT, and 415 ECMO controls matched with a propensity score algorithm based on age, gender, race, severity of illness at admission, and reason for ECMO. The primary indication for ECMO was respiratory failure in 66.7% in the oncologic disease and/or HSCT group, and in 70.7% in the matched ECMO control group. Eleven of 18 patients survived to hospital discharge (61.1%), similar to the matched control group (60.8%), P = 0.979. Children with oncologic disease and/or HSCT had lower mean platelet counts during ECMO and received higher volumes of platelets compared with the control group, mean 14.6 mL/kg/day (standard deviations [SD], 9.8) versus mean 9.3 mL/kg/day (SD, 10.4), P = 0.001. Of the 11 surviving children with oncologic disease and/or HSCT, five sustained new neurologic disorders (45.5%) versus 45 of 222 (20.3%) in the control group, P = 0.061. Bleeding complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of patients with oncologic disease and/or HSCT supported on ECMO in the current era are not significantly different compared with matched ECMO controls and are improved from previously published reports.