Functional recovery in a cohort of ECMO and non-ECMO acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors.

BACKGROUND: The mortality benefit of VV-ECMO in ARDS has been extensively studied, but the impact on long-term functional outcomes of survivors is poorly defined. We aimed to assess the association between ECMO and functional outcomes in a contemporaneous cohort of survivors of ARDS. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study of ARDS survivors who presented to follow-up clinic. The primary outcome was FVC% predicted. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the impact of ECMO on the primary outcome. RESULTS: This study enrolled 110 survivors of ARDS, 34 of whom were managed using ECMO. The ECMO cohort was younger (35 [28, 50] vs. 51 [44, 61] years old, p < 0.01), less likely to have COVID-19 (58% vs. 96%, p < 0.01), more severely ill based on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (7 [5, 9] vs. 4 [3, 6], p < 0.01), dynamic lung compliance (15 mL/cmH20 [11, 20] vs. 27 mL/cmH20 [23, 35], p < 0.01), oxygenation index (26 [22, 33] vs. 9 [6, 11], p < 0.01), and their need for rescue modes of ventilation. ECMO patients had significantly longer lengths of hospitalization (46 [27, 62] vs. 16 [12, 31] days, p < 0.01) ICU stay (29 [19, 43] vs. 10 [5, 17] days, p < 0.01), and duration of mechanical ventilation (24 [14, 42] vs. 10 [7, 17] days, p < 0.01). Functional outcomes were similar in ECMO and non-ECMO patients. ECMO did not predict changes in lung function when adjusting for age, SOFA, COVID-19 status, or length of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the FVC% predicted, or other markers of pulmonary, neurocognitive, or psychiatric functional recovery outcomes, when comparing a contemporaneous clinic-based cohort of survivors of ARDS managed with ECMO to those without ECMO.

Incidental Pulmonary Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening.

Incidental nodules and lung cancer screening nodules are causes of concern and anxiety for the patients. Both these require diligent follow up according to their respective guidelines.

Exploring the effects of racial and socioeconomic factors on timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in Baltimore Veterans.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the effect of racial and socioeconomic factors on the timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in a single-center Veterans Affair Medical Center (VAMC) pulmonary nodule clinic. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective review of all patients seen at the Baltimore VAMC pulmonary nodule clinic between 2013 and 2019 to identify key demographic factors, measures of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, cancer staging and histopathologic information, and time elapsed between diagnosis and treatment. We excluded patients with pulmonary nodules undergoing active surveillance, prior history of lung cancer, metastases of a different primary origin, insufficient followup, or who had received care outside the VHA system. RESULTS: Median times to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer were 28 and 73 days. There were no statistically significant differences in overall timeliness of diagnosis and treatment when stratified by race or measures of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found no differences in timeliness of lung cancer care by race and socioeconomic status within the system. Despite general adherence to national standards in timeliness of care, there continues to be a need for improvements in the operational workflows to reduce time to diagnosis and treatment for all Veterans.

Military exposures and lung cancer in United States veterans.

Lung cancer screening begins at age 50, with yearly low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans until age 80, for patients determined to be high risk due to tobacco smoking. Veterans serving from World War II to the Gulf War are now at the age where LDCT is recommended. This recommendation from the United States Preventative Service Task Force includes patients who have a 20-pack year tobacco history and currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years. This recommendation does not consider additional risk factors such as exposures to lung carcinogens. We discuss unique operational and occupational exposures encountered while serving in the armed forces, which may potentially increase the risk of lung cancers in the Veteran population. The additional risk of lung cancer due to military exposure history is unclear and more work is needed to identify and quantify risk at an individual level. Increasing awareness at the provider level regarding the carcinogenic exposures encountered may allow a larger population of Veterans, not meeting traditional LDCT criteria, to benefit from lung cancer screening.