Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Circulatory Failure in COVID-19 Patients: Insights from the ECMOSARS Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical profile and outcomes of patients with Covid-19 who require veno-arterial or veno-venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO - VAV-ECMO) are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of these patients and to identify predictors of both favorable and unfavorable outcomes. METHODS: ECMOSARS is a multicenter, prospective, nationwide French registry enrolling patients who require VV/VA-ECMO in the context of Covid-19 infection (652 patients at 41 centers). We focused on 47 patients supported with VA- or VAV-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock. RESULTS: Median age was 49. 14% of patients had a prior diagnosis of heart failure. The most common etiologies of cardiogenic shock were acute pulmonary embolism (30%), myocarditis (28%), and acute coronary syndrome (4%). E-CPR (Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) occurred in 38%. In-hospital survival was 28% in the whole cohort, and 43% when E-CPR patients were excluded. ECMO cannulation was associated with significant improvements in pH and FiO2 on day one, but non-survivors showed significantly more severe acidosis and higher FiO2 than survivors at this point (p = 0.030 and p = 0.006). Other factors associated with death were greater age (p = 0.02), higher BMI (p = 0.03), E-CPR (p = 0.001), non-myocarditis etiology (p = 0.02), higher serum lactates (p = 0.004), epinephrine (but not noradrenaline) use before initiation of ECMO (p = 0.003), hemorrhagic complications (p = 0.001), greater transfusion requirements (p = 0.001), and more severe SAVE and SAFE scores (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest focused analysis of VA- and VAV-ECMO recipients in Covid-19. Although relatively rare, the need for temporary mechanical circulatory support in these patients is associated with poor prognosis. However, VA-ECMO remains a viable solution to rescue carefully selected patients. We identified factors associated with poor prognosis and suggest that E-CPR is not a reasonable indication for VA-ECMO in this population.

Impact of Prone Position in COVID-19 Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVES: Prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are both useful interventions in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Combining the two therapies is feasible and safe, but the effectiveness is not known. Our objective was to evaluate the potential survival benefit of prone positioning in venovenous ECMO patients cannulated for COVID-19-related ARDS. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a multicenter cohort. PATIENTS: Patients on venovenous ECMO who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or with a diagnosis on chest CT were eligible. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All patients on venovenous ECMO for respiratory failure in whom prone position status while on ECMO and in-hospital mortality were known were included. Of 647 patients in 41 centers, 517 were included. Median age was 55 (47-61), 78% were male and 95% were proned before cannulation. After cannulation, 364 patients (70%) were proned and 153 (30%) remained in the supine position for the whole ECMO run. There were 194 (53%) and 92 (60%) deaths in the prone and the supine groups, respectively. Prone position on ECMO was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 0.49 [0.29-0.84]; p = 0.010). In 153 propensity score-matched pairs, mortality rate was 49.7% in the prone position group versus 60.1% in the supine position group (p = 0.085). Considering only patients alive at decannulation, propensity-matched proned patients had a significantly lower mortality rate (22.4% vs 37.8%; p = 0.029) than nonproned patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prone position may be beneficial in patients supported by venovenous ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS but more data are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Bleeding and thrombotic events in patients with severe COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a nationwide cohort study.

PURPOSE: To describe bleeding and thrombotic events and their risk factors in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate their impact on in-hospital mortality. METHODS: The ECMOSARS registry included COVID-19 patients supported by ECMO in France. We analyzed all patients included up to March 31, 2022 without missing data regarding bleeding and thrombotic events. The association of bleeding and thrombotic events with in-hospital mortality and pre-ECMO variables was assessed using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 620 patients supported by ECMO, 29% had only bleeding events, 16% only thrombotic events and 20% both bleeding and thrombosis. Cannulation site (18% of patients), ear nose and throat (12%), pulmonary bleeding (9%) and intracranial hemorrhage (8%) were the most frequent bleeding types. Device-related thrombosis and pulmonary embolism/thrombosis accounted for most of thrombotic events. In-hospital mortality was 55.7%. Bleeding events were associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) = 2.91[1.94-4.4]) but not thrombotic events (adjOR = 1.02[0.68-1.53]). Intracranial hemorrhage was strongly associated with in-hospital mortality (adjOR = 13.5[4.4-41.5]). Ventilation duration before ECMO ≥ 7 days and length of ECMO support were associated with bleeding. Thrombosis-associated factors were fibrinogen ≥ 6 g/L and length of ECMO support. CONCLUSIONS: In a nationwide cohort of COVID-19 patients supported by ECMO, bleeding incidence was high and associated with mortality. Intracranial hemorrhage incidence was higher than reported for non-COVID patients and carried the highest risk of death. Thrombotic events were less frequent and not associated with mortality. Length of ECMO support was associated with a higher risk of both bleeding and thrombosis, supporting the development of strategies to minimize ECMO duration.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure Related to COVID-19: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite expanding use, knowledge on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support during the COVID-19 pandemic remains limited. The objective was to report characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in France and to identify pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation factors associated with in-hospital mortality. A hypothesis of similar mortality rates and risk factors for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was made. METHODS: The Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure and/or Heart failure related to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (ECMOSARS) registry included COVID-19 patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in France. This study analyzed patients included in this registry up to October 25, 2020, and supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure with a minimum follow-up of 28 days after cannulation. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 494 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients included in the registry, 429 were initially supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and followed for at least 28 days. The median (interquartile range) age was 54 yr (46 to 60 yr), and 338 of 429 (79%) were men. Management before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation included prone positioning for 411 of 429 (96%), neuromuscular blockage for 419 of 427 (98%), and NO for 161 of 401 (40%). A total of 192 of 429 (45%) patients were cannulated by a mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation unit. In-hospital mortality was 219 of 429 (51%), with a median follow-up of 49 days (33 to 70 days). Among pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation modifiable exposure variables, neuromuscular blockage use (hazard ratio, 0.286; 95% CI, 0.101 to 0.81) and duration of ventilation (more than 7 days compared to less than 2 days; hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.83) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Both age (per 10-yr increase; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.50) and total bilirubin at cannulation (6.0 mg/dl or more compared to less than 1.2 mg/dl; hazard ratio, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.09 to 6.5) were confounders significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality was higher than recently reported, but nearly half of the patients survived. A high proportion of patients were cannulated by a mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation unit. Several factors associated with mortality were identified. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support should be considered early within the first week of mechanical ventilation initiation.

Platelet-derived sCD40L: specific inflammatory marker for early-stage severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 virus is the causing agent of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) characterized by a huge pro-inflammatory response and coagulation disorders that may lead to for its severe forms, in organ failure or even death. As major players of thrombo-inflammation, platelets release large amounts of immunomodulatory molecules and regulate leukocyte and endothelial activity, which are both altered in COVID-19. Altogether, this makes platelets a very likely actor of the thrombo-inflammatory complications of COVID-19. Thus, we propose to identify a platelet inflammatory signature of severe COVID-19 specifically modulated throughout the course of the disease. METHODS: Luminex technology and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were used to assess plasma levels of platelet inflammatory markers in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection on admission and for 14 days afterwards. RESULTS: In accordance with the observations of other teams, we evidence that the plasma levels of the platelet soluble (s)CD40L is significantly elevated in the early stages of the disease. Interestingly we observe that the plasma level of sCD40L decreases overtime while that of sCD62P increases significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that there is a platelet signature of inflammatory response to SARS-COv-2 infection which varies overtime and could serve as monitoring biomarkers of patient inflammatory state. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2020-A01100-39; title: Human Ab Response & immunoMONItoring of COVID-19 Patients, registration date: 05/25/2020; URL of the registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT04373200?V_5=View .

Prévention du risque thromboembolique veineux et surveillance de l’hémostase chez les patients hospitalisés pour COVID-19 : propositions réactualisées (avril 2021). Groupe d’intérêt en hémostase périopératoire (GIHP) et groupe d’étude sur l’hémostase et la thrombose (GFHT) Prevention of venous thromboembolism and haemostasis monitoring in patients with COVID-19: Updated proposals (April 2021): From the French working group on perioperative haemostasis (GIHP) and the French study group on thrombosis and haemostasis (GFHT), in collaboration with the French society of anaesthesia and intensive care (SFAR)

<h4>Contexte</h4> La COVID-19 est associée à un risque thromboembolique veineux élevé, en particulier chez les patients sévères. Depuis les premières propositions GIHP/GFHT publiées en avril 2020, de nouvelles connaissances sont apparues. L’objet du présent travail était de réactualiser ces propositions. <h4>Méthodes</h4> Un groupe de travail a défini sept questions et effectué une revue critique de la littérature. Les propositions ont été formulées après consensus entre les membres du groupe de travail et les autres membres du GIHP/GFHT. <h4>Résultats</h4> Chez les patients hospitalisés non sévères et certains patients ambulatoires à risque, nous suggérons l’administration d’une thromboprophylaxie à dose standard. Chez les patients sévères, nous suggérons une thromboprophylaxie à dose intermédiaire ou thérapeutique selon le taux de D-dimères et son évolution. Sept à dix jours après l’admission, nous suggérons de revenir à une dose standard pour réduire le risque hémorragique. Chez les patients présentant un très haut risque thrombotique, ayant reçu une thromboprophylaxie à dose thérapeutique, nous suggérons un dépistage systématique de la thrombose avant la désescalade. Nous suggérons d’ajuster l’anticoagulation au poids des patients. Nous suggérons un monitorage régulier des paramètres d’hémostase, incluant les D-dimères, chez les patients sévères. Nous suggérons un monitorage de l’anticoagulation à dose intermédiaire et thérapeutique par l’activité anti-Xa. <h4>Conclusion</h4> Les propositions réactualisées suivent une approche standard de la thromboprophylaxie, visant à diminuer l’incidence des évènements thromboemboliques veineux symptomatiques. Chez les patients sévères, nous proposons une stratégie séquentielle tenant compte de la relation temporelle entre le risque thrombotique et le risque hémorragique.

Prévention du risque thromboembolique veineux et surveillance de l’hémostase chez les patients hospitalisés pour COVID-19 : propositions réactualisées (avril 2021). Groupe d’intérêt en hémostase périopératoire (GIHP) et groupe d’étude sur l’hémostase et la thrombose (GFHT)

Résumé Contexte La COVID-19 est associée à un risque thromboembolique veineux élevé, en particulier chez les patients sévères. Depuis les premières propositions GIHP/GFHT publiées en avril 2020, de nouvelles connaissances sont apparues. L’objet du présent travail était de réactualiser ces propositions. Méthodes Un groupe de travail a défini sept questions et effectué une revue critique de la littérature. Les propositions ont été formulées après consensus entre les membres du groupe de travail et les autres membres du GIHP/GFHT. Résultats Chez les patients hospitalisés non sévères et certains patients ambulatoires à risque, nous suggérons l’administration d’une thromboprophylaxie à dose standard. Chez les patients sévères, nous suggérons une thromboprophylaxie à dose intermédiaire ou thérapeutique selon le taux de D-dimères et son évolution. Sept à dix jours après l’admission, nous suggérons de revenir à une dose standard pour réduire le risque hémorragique. Chez les patients présentant un très haut risque thrombotique, ayant reçu une thromboprophylaxie à dose thérapeutique, nous suggérons un dépistage systématique de la thrombose avant la désescalade. Nous suggérons d’ajuster l’anticoagulation au poids des patients. Nous suggérons un monitorage régulier des paramètres d’hémostase, incluant les D-dimères, chez les patients sévères. Nous suggérons un monitorage de l’anticoagulation à dose intermédiaire et thérapeutique par l’activité anti-Xa. Conclusion Les propositions réactualisées suivent une approche standard de la thromboprophylaxie, visant à diminuer l’incidence des évènements thromboemboliques veineux symptomatiques. Chez les patients sévères, nous proposons une stratégie séquentielle tenant compte de la relation temporelle entre le risque thrombotique et le risque hémorragique.

Influenza- and COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis: Are the Pictures Different?

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in intensive care unit patients is a major concern. Influenza-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe COVID-19 patients are both at risk of developing invasive fungal diseases. We used the new international definitions of influenza-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (IAPA) and COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) to compare the demographic, clinical, biological, and radiological aspects of IAPA and CAPA in a monocentric retrospective study. A total of 120 patients were included, 71 with influenza and 49 with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Among them, 27 fulfilled the newly published criteria of IPA: 17/71 IAPA (23.9%) and 10/49 CAPA (20.4%). Kaplan-Meier curves showed significantly higher 90-day mortality for IPA patients overall (p = 0.032), whereas mortality did not differ between CAPA and IAPA patients. Radiological findings showed differences between IAPA and CAPA, with a higher proportion of features suggestive of IPA during IAPA. Lastly, a wide proportion of IPA patients had low plasma voriconazole concentrations with a higher delay to reach concentrations > 2 mg/L in CAPA vs. IAPA patients (p = 0.045). Severe COVID-19 and influenza patients appeared very similar in terms of prevalence of IPA and outcome. The dramatic consequences on the patients' prognosis emphasize the need for a better awareness in these particular populations.

Successful heart transplantation for COVID-19-associated post-infectious fulminant myocarditis.

Various clinical presentations of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have been described, including post-infectious acute and fulminant myocarditis. Here, we describe the case of a young patient admitted for COVID-19-associated post-infectious fulminant myocarditis. Despite optimal pharmacologic management, haemodynamic status worsened requiring support by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Emergent heart transplantation was required at Day 11 given the absence of cardiac function improvement. The diagnosis of post-infectious COVID-19-associated myocarditis was made from both pathologic examination of the explanted heart and positive SARS-CoV-2 serology.

Impact of High-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Because of the high risk of thrombotic complications (TCs) during SARS-CoV-2 infection, several scientific societies have proposed to increase the dose of preventive anticoagulation, although arguments in favor of this strategy are inconsistent. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the incidence of TC in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and what is the relationship between the dose of anticoagulant therapy and the incidence of TC? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: All consecutive patients referred to eight French ICUs for COVID-19 were included in this observational study. Clinical and laboratory data were collected from ICU admission to day 14, including anticoagulation status and thrombotic and hemorrhagic events. The effect of high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (either at intermediate or equivalent to therapeutic dose), defined using a standardized protocol of classification, was assessed using a time-varying exposure model using inverse probability of treatment weight. RESULTS: Of 538 patients included, 104 patients experienced a total of 122 TCs with an incidence of 22.7% (95% CI, 19.2%-26.3%). Pulmonary embolism accounted for 52% of the recorded TCs. High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation was associated with a significant reduced risk of TC (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99) without increasing the risk of bleeding (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70-1.75). INTERPRETATION: High-dose prophylactic anticoagulation is associated with a reduction in thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 without an increased risk of hemorrhage. Randomized controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with higher doses of anticoagulants are needed to confirm these results. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04405869; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Prevention of thrombotic risk in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hemostasis monitoring.

COVID-19 is an infection induced by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and severe forms can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) management. Severe forms are associated with coagulation changes, mainly characterized by an increase in D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, with a higher risk of thrombosis, particularly pulmonary embolism. The impact of obesity in severe COVID-19 has also been highlighted.In this context, standard doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may be inadequate in ICU patients, with obesity, major inflammation, and hypercoagulability. We therefore urgently developed proposals on the prevention of thromboembolism and monitoring of hemostasis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Four levels of thromboembolic risk were defined according to the severity of COVID-19 reflected by oxygen requirement and treatment, the body mass index, and other risk factors. Monitoring of hemostasis (including fibrinogen and D-dimer levels) every 48 h is proposed. Standard doses of LMWH (e.g., enoxaparin 4000 IU/24 h SC) are proposed in case of intermediate thrombotic risk (BMI < 30 kg/m2, no other risk factors and no ARDS). In all obese patients (high thrombotic risk), adjusted prophylaxis with intermediate doses of LMWH (e.g., enoxaparin 4000 IU/12 h SC or 6000 IU/12 h SC if weight > 120 kg), or unfractionated heparin (UFH) if renal insufficiency (200 IU/kg/24 h, IV), is proposed. The thrombotic risk was defined as very high in obese patients with ARDS and added risk factors for thromboembolism, and also in case of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), unexplained catheter thrombosis, dialysis filter thrombosis, or marked inflammatory syndrome and/or hypercoagulability (e.g., fibrinogen > 8 g/l and/or D-dimers > 3 µg/ml). In ICU patients, it is sometimes difficult to confirm a diagnosis of thrombosis, and curative anticoagulant treatment may also be discussed on a probabilistic basis. In all these situations, therapeutic doses of LMWH, or UFH in case of renal insufficiency with monitoring of anti-Xa activity, are proposed.In conclusion, intensification of heparin treatment should be considered in the context of COVID-19 on the basis of clinical and biological criteria of severity, especially in severely ill ventilated patients, for whom the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism cannot be easily confirmed.