Prevalence of pulmonary hypertension in patients with COVID-19 related lung disease listed for lung transplantation: A UNOS registry analysis.

COVID-19 related lung disease (CRLD) has emerged as an indication for lung transplantation (LT) in highly select patients. The prevalence and prognostic implication of coexisting pulmonary hypertension (PH) in patients with CRLD listed for LT is not known. Adult patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing database listed for LT for COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome or fibrosis through March 2022 were identified. The prevalence and impact of precapillary PH on pre- and posttransplantation survival was determined. Time-to-event analysis was used to compare outcomes between those with and without precapillary PH. We identified 245 patients listed for LT for CRLD who had right heart catheterization data available at the time of registry listing. Median age of the cohort was 54 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 46, 60), 56 (22.9%) were female, and the median lung allocation score was 81.3 (IQR: 53.3, 89.4). The prevalence of precapillary PH at the time of transplant listing was 27.9%. There was no significant difference in pretransplant mortality in patients with and without precapillary PH (sHR: 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-1.7, p = 0.261). A total of 187 patients ultimately underwent LT; of those, 60 (31.0%) were identified as having precapillary PH during the waitlist period. Posttransplantation survival was similar between patients with and without pretransplant precapillary PH (hazard ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.2-3.7, p = 0.953). We observed a high rate of concomitant precapillary PH in patients listed for LT for CRLD. Though common, coexisting precapillary PH was not associated with a significant difference in either pre- or post-transplantation outcomes.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: Comparison of Outcomes to Non-COVID-19-Related Viral Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

To compare complications and mortality between patients that required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pathogens. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Adult patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. PATIENTS: Nine-thousand two-hundred ninety-one patients that required ECMO for viral mediated ARDS between January 2017 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes of interest were mortality during ECMO support and prior to hospital discharge. Time-to-event analysis and logistic regression were used to compare outcomes between the groups. Among 9,291 included patients, 1,155 required ECMO for non-COVID-19 viral ARDS and 8,136 required ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 had longer duration of ECMO (19.6 d [interquartile range (IQR), 10.1-34.0 d] vs 10.7 d [IQR, 6.3-19.7 d]; p < 0.001), higher mortality during ECMO support (44.4% vs 27.5%; p < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (50.2% vs 34.5%; p < 0.001). Further, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to experience mechanical and clinical complications (membrane lung failure, pneumothorax, intracranial hemorrhage, and superimposed infection). After adjusting for pre-ECMO disease severity, patients with COVID-19 were more than two times as likely to die in the hospital compared with patients with non-COVID-19 viral ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 that require ECMO have longer duration of ECMO, more complications, and higher in-hospital mortality compared with patients with non-COVID-19-related viral ARDS. Further study in patients with COVID-19 is critical to identify the patient phenotype most likely to benefit from ECMO and to better define the role of ECMO in the management of this disease process.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: Comparison of Outcomes to Non-COVID-19–Related Viral Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry

OBJECTIVES: To compare complications and mortality between patients that required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pathogens. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Adult patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. PATIENTS: Nine-thousand two-hundred ninety-one patients that required ECMO for viral mediated ARDS between January 2017 and December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes of interest were mortality during ECMO support and prior to hospital discharge. Time-to-event analysis and logistic regression were used to compare outcomes between the groups. Among 9,291 included patients, 1,155 required ECMO for non-COVID-19 viral ARDS and 8,136 required ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 had longer duration of ECMO (19.6 d [interquartile range (IQR), 10.1–34.0 d] vs 10.7 d [IQR, 6.3–19.7 d];p < 0.001), higher mortality during ECMO support (44.4% vs 27.5%;p < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (50.2% vs 34.5%;p < 0.001). Further, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to experience mechanical and clinical complications (membrane lung failure, pneumothorax, intracranial hemorrhage, and superimposed infection). After adjusting for pre-ECMO disease severity, patients with COVID-19 were more than two times as likely to die in the hospital compared with patients with non-COVID-19 viral ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 that require ECMO have longer duration of ECMO, more complications, and higher in-hospital mortality compared with patients with non-COVID-19–related viral ARDS. Further study in patients with COVID-19 is critical to identify the patient phenotype most likely to benefit from ECMO and to better define the role of ECMO in the management of this disease process.

Fostamatinib for the Treatment of Hospitalized Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospitalization is characterized by robust antibody production, dysregulated immune response, and immunothrombosis. Fostamatinib is a novel spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor that we hypothesize will ameliorate Fc activation and attenuate harmful effects of the anti-COVID-19 immune response. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in hospitalized adults requiring oxygen with COVID-19 where patients receiving standard of care were randomized to receive fostamatinib or placebo. The primary outcome was serious adverse events by day 29. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients underwent randomization (30 to fostamatinib and 29 to placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in 10.5% of patients in the fostamatinib group compared with 22% in placebo (P = .2). Three deaths occurred by day 29, all receiving placebo. The mean change in ordinal score at day 15 was greater in the fostamatinib group (-3.6 ±â€…0.3 vs -2.6 ±â€…0.4, P = .035) and the median length in the intensive care unit was 3 days in the fostamatinib group vs 7 days in placebo (P = .07). Differences in clinical improvement were most evident in patients with severe or critical disease (median days on oxygen, 10 vs 28, P = .027). There were trends toward more rapid reductions in C-reactive protein, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and ferritin levels in the fostamatinib group. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 requiring hospitalization, the addition of fostamatinib to standard of care was safe and patients were observed to have improved clinical outcomes compared with placebo. These results warrant further validation in larger confirmatory trials. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04579393.

Lung Transplantation for Patients With COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused acute lung injury in millions of individuals worldwide. Some patients develop COVID-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) and cannot be liberated from mechanical ventilation. Others may develop post-COVID fibrosis, resulting in substantial disability and need for long-term supplemental oxygen. In both of these situations, treatment teams often inquire about the possibility of lung transplantation. In fact, lung transplantation has been successfully employed for both CARDS and post-COVID fibrosis in a limited number of patients worldwide. Lung transplantation after COVID infection presents a number of unique challenges that transplant programs must consider. In those with severe CARDS, the inability to conduct proper psychosocial evaluation and pretransplantation education, marked deconditioning from critical illness, and infectious concerns regarding viral reactivation are major hurdles. In those with post-COVID fibrosis, our limited knowledge about the natural history of recovery after COVID-19 infection is problematic. Increased knowledge of the likelihood and degree of recovery after COVID-19 acute lung injury is essential for appropriate decision-making with regard to transplantation. Transplant physicians must weigh the risks and benefits of lung transplantation differently in a post-COVID fibrosis patient who is likely to remain stable or gradually improve in comparison with a patient with a known progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (fILD). Clearly lung transplantation can be a life-saving therapeutic option for some patients with severe lung injury from COVID-19 infection. In this review, we discuss how lung transplant providers from a number of experienced centers approach lung transplantation for CARDS or post-COVID fibrosis.

Inhaled Nitric Oxide via High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure Related to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists regarding use of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) in spontaneously breathing patients. We evaluated the effectiveness of continuous iNO via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in COVID-19 respiratory failure. METHODS: We performed a multicenter cohort study of patients with respiratory failure from COVID-19 managed with HFNC. Patients were stratified by administration of iNO via HFNC. Regression analysis was used to compare the need for mechanical ventilation and secondary endpoints including hospital mortality, length of stay, acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, and need for extracorporeal life support. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were identified and 66 (24.3%) of these patients received iNO via HFNC for a median of 88 h (interquartile range: 44, 135). After 12 h of iNO, supplemental oxygen requirement was unchanged or increased in 52.7% of patients. Twenty-nine (43.9%) patients treated with iNO compared to 79 (38.3%) patients without iNO therapy required endotracheal intubation (P = .47). After multivariable adjustment, there was no difference in need for mechanical ventilation between groups (odds ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-3.17), however, iNO administration was associated with longer hospital length of stay (incidence rate ratio: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.31-1.51). No difference was found for mortality, acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, or need for extracorporeal life support. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure, iNO delivered via HFNC did not reduce oxygen requirements in the majority of patients or improve clinical outcomes. Given the observed association with increased length of stay, judicious selection of those likely to benefit from this therapy is warranted.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in COVID-19: Using the ROX Index to Predict Success.

BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 is uncertain. We sought to evaluate outcomes of delayed intubation and examine the ROX index (ie, [[Formula: see text]]/breathing frequency) to predict weaning from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of subjects with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and managed with HFNC. The ROX index was applied to predict HFNC success. Subjects that failed HFNC were divided into early HFNC failure (≤ 48 h of HFNC therapy prior to mechanical ventilation) and late failure (> 48 h). Standard statistical comparisons and regression analyses were used to compare overall hospital mortality and secondary end points, including time-specific mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and ICU length of stay between early and late failure groups. RESULTS: 272 subjects with COVID-19 were managed with HFNC. One hundred sixty-four (60.3%) were successfully weaned from HFNC, and 111 (67.7%) of those weaned were managed solely in non-ICU settings. ROX index >3.0 at 2, 6, and 12 hours after initiation of HFNC was 85.3% sensitive for identifying subsequent HFNC success. One hundred eight subjects were intubated for failure of HFNC (61 early failures and 47 late failures). Mortality after HFNC failure was high (45.4%). There was no statistical difference in hospital mortality (39.3% vs 53.2%, P = .18) or any of the secondary end points between early and late HFNC failure groups. This remained true even when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review, HFNC was a viable strategy and mechanical ventilation was unecessary in the majority of subjects. In the minority that progressed to mechanical ventilation, duration of HFNC did not differentiate subjects with worse clinical outcomes. The ROX index was sensitive for the identification of subjects successfully weaned from HFNC. Prospective studies in COVID-19 are warranted to confirm these findings and to optimize patient selection for use of HFNC in this disease.

Association of D-dimer and Fibrinogen With Hypercoagulability in COVID-19 Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: D-dimer concentration has been used by institutions to identify candidates for intensified anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism prevention and for the mitigation of the microthrombotic complications associated with COVID-19. Thromboelastography (TEG) maximum amplitude (MA) has been validated as a marker of hypercoagulability and MA ≥68 mm has been utilized as a marker of hypercoagulability in other conditions. METHODS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the relationship between coagulation, inflammatory, and TEG parameters in patients with COVID-19 on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients that received ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19. TEG, inflammatory, and coagulation markers were compared in patients with and without a thrombotic complication. Correlation tests were performed to identify the coagulation and inflammatory markers that best predict hypercoagulability as defined by an elevated TEG MA. RESULTS: A total of 168 TEGs were available in 24 patients. C-reactive protein and fibrinogen were significantly higher in patients that developed a thrombotic event versus those that did not (P = 0.04 and P = 0.04 respectively). D-dimer was negatively correlated with TEG MA (P < 0.01), while fibrinogen was positively correlated (P < 0.01). A fibrinogen >441 mg/dL was found to have a sensitivity of 91.2% and specificity of 85.7% for the detection of MA ≥68 mm. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated with ECMO, D-dimer concentration had an inverse relationship with degree of hypercoagulability as measured by TEG MA. D-dimer elevation may potentially reflect hemostatic perturbation in patients on ECMO or the severity of COVID-19 related sepsis rather than designate patients likely to benefit from anticoagulation. Fibrinogen concentration may represent a more useful marker of hypercoagulability in this population.

Outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 associated respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: The outcomes of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 remain poorly defined. We sought to determine clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 managed with invasive mechanical ventilation in an appropriately resourced US health care system. METHODS: Outcomes of COVID-19 infected patients requiring mechanical ventilation treated within the Inova Health System between March 5, 2020 and April 26, 2020 were evaluated through an electronic medical record review. RESULTS: 1023 COVID-19 positive patients were admitted to the Inova Health System during the study period. Of these, 164 (16.0%) were managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed to definitive disposition. 70/164 patients (42.7%) had died and 94/164 (57.3%) were still alive. Deceased patients were older (median age of 66 vs. 55, p <0.0001) and had a higher initial d-dimer (2.22 vs. 1.31, p = 0.005) and peak ferritin levels (2998 vs. 2077, p = 0.016) compared to survivors. 84.3% of patients over 70 years old died in the hospital. Conversely, 67.4% of patients age 70 or younger survived to hospital discharge. Younger age, non-Caucasian race and treatment at a tertiary care center were all associated with survivor status. CONCLUSION: Mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is high, with particularly daunting mortality seen in patients of advanced age, even in a well-resourced health care system. A substantial proportion of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were not of advanced age, and this group had a reasonable chance for recovery.