Triage of V-V ECMO referrals for COVID-19 respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: As the pandemic progressed, the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome increased, and patient triage and transfer to ECMO centers became important to optimize patient outcomes. Our objectives are to identify predictors of patient transfer for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) evaluation as well as to describe the outcomes of accepted patients. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective analysis of V-V ECMO transfer requests for adult patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and respiratory failure from March 2020 until March 2021. Data were collected prospectively during the triage process for transfer requests as part of clinical patient care at our institution. RESULTS: Of 341 referred patients, 112 (33%) were accepted for transfer to our facility, whereas 229 (67%) patients were declined for transfer. The Classification and Regression Tree analysis showed that patients' high pressure during airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and age were the variables most significantly associated with the decision to accept or decline patients for transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Our triage process enabled one-third of referred patients to be transferred for evaluation, with nearly 70% of those patients ultimately receiving ECMO support. High ventilator settings on APRV and young age were associated with acceptance for transfer. Accepted patients also had a higher incidence of adjunctive therapies (proning and paralysis) prior to transfer request, less cardiac or renal dysfunction, and a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation. Further research is warranted to investigate the outcomes of nontransferred patients.

Air or Ground Transport to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit: Does It Really Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Critically ill patients requiring urgent interventions or subspecialty care often require transport over significant distances to tertiary care centers. The optimal method of transportation (air vs. ground) is unknown. We investigated whether air transport was associated with lower mortality for patients being transferred to a specialized critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all adult patients transferred to the CCRU at the University of Maryland Medical Center in 2018. Our primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay and the time to the operating room (OR) for patients undergoing urgent procedures. We performed optimal 1:2 propensity score matching for each patient's need for air transport. RESULTS: We matched 198 patients transported by air to 382 patients transported by ground. There was no significant difference between demographics, the initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, or hospital outcomes between groups. One hundred sixty-four (83%) of the patients transported via air survived to hospital discharge compared with 307 (80%) of those transported by ground (P = .46). Patients transported via air arrived at the CCRU more quickly (127 [100-178] vs. 223 [144-332] minutes, P < .001) and were more likely (60 patients, 30%) to undergo urgent surgical operation within 12 hours of CCRU arrival (30% vs. 17%, P < .001). For patients taken to the OR within 12 hours of arriving at the CCRU, patients transported by air were more likely to go to the OR after 200 minutes since the transfer request (P = .001). CONCLUSION: The transportation mode used to facilitate interfacility transfer was not significantly associated with hospital mortality or the length of stay for critically ill patients.

Cannula associated deep vein thromboses in COVID-19 patients supported with VV ECMO.

BACKGROUND: VV ECMO is increasingly used as a rescue strategy for hypercarbic and hypoxic respiratory failure refractory to conventional management, and more than 14,000 patients with COVID-19 related respiratory failure have been supported with VV ECMO to date. One of the known complications of VV ECMO support is the development of cannula-associated deep vein thromboses (CaDVT). The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence of CaDVT in COVID-19 patients supported with VV ECMO as compared to non-COVID-19 patients. We hypothesized that due to the hypercoagulable state and longer duration of VV ECMO support required for patients with COVID-19, a higher incidence of CaDVT would be observed in these patients. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective observational study. About 291 non-trauma adult patients who were cannulated for VV ECMO and managed at our institution from January 1, 2014 to January 10, 2022 were included. The primary outcome was the presence of CaDVT 24 h after decannulation in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 patients. Our secondary outcome was continued presence of DVT on follow up imaging. CaDVT were defined as venous thrombi detected at prior cannulation sites. RESULTS: Both groups had a high incidence of CaDVT. There was no significant difference in the incidence of CaDVT in COVID-19 patients compared to non-COVID-19 patients (95% vs 88%, p = 0.13). Patients with COVID-19 had an increased incidence of persistent CaDVT on repeat imaging (78% vs 56%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Given the high number of post-decannulation CaDVT in both groups, routine screening should be a part of post ECMO care in both populations. Repeat venous duplex ultrasound should be performed to assess for the need for ongoing treatment given the high incidence of CaDVT that persisted on repeat duplex scans.

Role of the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit in a Comprehensive Stroke Center: Operations for Mechanical Thrombectomy During the Pandemic.

Introduction: Standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) includes prompt evaluation for urgent mechanical thrombectomy (MT) at a comprehensive stroke center (CSC). During the start of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), there were reports about disruption to emergency department (ED) operations and delays in management of patients with AIS-LVO. In this study we investigate the outcome and operations for patients who were transferred from different EDs to an academic CSC's critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU), which specializes in expeditious transfer of time-sensitive disease. Methods: This was a pre-post retrospective study using prospectively collected clinical data from our CSC's stroke registry. Adult patients who were transferred from any ED to the CCRU and underwent MT were eligible. We compared time intervals in the pre-pandemic (PP) period between January 2018- February 2020, such as ED in-out and CCRU arrival-angiography, to those during the pandemic (DP) between March 2020-May 31, 2021. We used classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify which time intervals, besides clinical factors, were associated with good neurological outcome (90-day modified Rankin scale 0-2). Results: We analyzed 203 patients: 135 (66.5%) in the PP group and 68 (33.5%) in the DP group. Time from ED triage to computed tomography (difference 7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12 to -1, P < 0.01) for the DP group was statistically longer, but ED in-out was similar for both groups. Time from CCRU arrival to angiography (difference 9 minutes, 95% CI 4-13, P < 0.01) for the DP group was shorter. Forty-nine percent of the DP group achieved mRS ≤ 2 vs 32% for the PP group (difference -17%, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.03, P < 0.01). The CART identified initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, age, ED in-and-out time, and CCRU arrival-to-angiography time as important predictors of good outcome. Conclusion: Overall, the care process in EDs and at this single CSC for patients requiring MT were not heavily affected by the pandemic, as certain time metrics during the pandemic were statistically shorter than pre-pandemic intervals. Time intervals such as ED in-and-out and CCRU arrival-to-angiography were important factors in achieving good neurologic outcomes. Further study is necessary to confirm our observation and improve operational efficiency in the future.

High-grade liver injuries with contrast extravasation managed initially with interventional radiology versus observation: A secondary analysis of a WTA multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: High-grade liver injuries with extravasation (HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav) are associated with morbidity/mortality. For low-grade injuries, an observation (OBS) first-strategy is beneficial over initial angiography (IR), however, it is unclear if OBS is safe for HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients, hypothesizing IR patients will have decreased rates of operation and mortality. METHODS: HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients managed with initial OBS or IR were included. The primary outcome was need for operation. Secondary outcomes included liver-related complications (LRCs) and mortality. RESULTS: From 59 patients, 23 (39.0%) were managed with OBS and 36 (61.0%) with IR. 75% of IR patients underwent angioembolization, whereas 13% of OBS patients underwent any IR, all undergoing angioembolization. IR patients had an increased rate of operation (13.9% vs. 0%, p â€‹= â€‹0.049), but no difference in LRCs (44.4% vs. 43.5%) or mortality (5.6% vs. 8.7%) versus OBS patients (both p â€‹> â€‹0.05). CONCLUSION: Over 60% of patients were managed with IR initially. IR patients had an increased rate of operation yet similar rates of LRCs and mortality, suggesting initial OBS reasonable in appropriately selected HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients.