Comparison of Sedation and Analgesia Requirements in Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Versus Non-SARS-CoV-2 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Veno-Venous ECMO.

BACKGROUND: Increased analgosedation requirements have been described in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support due to unique pharmacokinetic challenges. There is a paucity of data comparing sedation requirements in patients on ECMO for ARDS secondary to SARS-CoV-2 versus other etiologies of respiratory failure. OBJECTIVE: To compare sedation and analgesia requirements in adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 versus non-SARS-CoV-2 ARDS requiring veno-venous (VV) ECMO support. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving sedation and analgesia on VV-ECMO support. Patients were excluded if cannulated at an outside hospital for greater than 24 hours, expired within 48 hours of ECMO cannulation, or received neuromuscular blocking agents for greater than 7 consecutive days following ECMO cannulation. RESULTS: We evaluated 108 patients on VV-ECMO support, including 44 with non-SARS-CoV-2 ARDS and 64 with SARS-CoV-2 ARDS. The median daily dexmedetomidine requirements were significantly higher in the SARS-CoV-2 cohort (16.7 vs 13.4 mcg/kg/day, P = 0.03), while the median propofol daily requirements were significantly higher in the non-SARS-CoV-2 cohort (40.3 vs 53.5 mg/kg/day, P < 0.01). There was no difference in daily requirements of opioids, benzodiazepines, and ketamine between groups. Use of adjunct agents to facilitate weaning was significantly higher in the SARS-CoV-2 cohort (78.1% vs 43.2%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Patients with ARDS on VV-ECMO support require multiple analgosedative agents with concomitant use of nonparenteral adjunct agents. Further studies are needed to evaluate optimal analgosedation strategies in patients on ECMO support.

A case series analysis of bicarbonate-based purge solution administration via Impella ventricular assist device.

PURPOSE: The Impella device historically required a heparin-based purge solution to reduce the risk of biomaterial deposition to maintain pump function. In April 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved utilization of bicarbonate-based purge solutions (BBPS) as an alternative to heparin for patients who are intolerant to heparin or in whom heparin is contraindicated. The purpose of this case series is to report patient outcomes of Impella support with BBPS use at our institution. SUMMARY: Eighteen patients who received BBPS via the Impella CP or Impella 5.5 device were included in our review. Patients were included if they had BBPS administration for greater than 24 hours. All patients were followed for 72 hours after cessation of BBPS. Indications for BBPS were coagulopathy (n = 5, 28%), suspected HIT (n = 2, 11%), confirmed HIT (n = 1, 6%), and major bleeding (n = 10, 56%). Three patients (17%) experienced an Impella complication while on BBPS. One patient required pump exchange, one required removal of the Impella device, and one received alteplase for suspected purge block. Of these, two patients experienced complications greater than 21 days into BBPS therapy. CONCLUSION: This case series adds to the literature describing clinical outcomes for patients on Impella support with BBPS. While BBPS offers a viable option for the management of patients on Impella devices who are unable to tolerate heparin-based purge solutions, further data is needed to determine the longevity of the Impella device with BBPS to minimize risk of Impella complications.