There are limited data describing COVID‐19 in lung transplant recipients. We performed a single center, retrospective case series study of lung transplant patients followed by the Columbia Lung Transplant program who tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 between March 19 and May 19, 2020. Thirty‐two lung transplant patients developed mild (16%), moderate (44%), or severe (41%) COVID‐19. The median age of patients was 65 years, and the median time from lung transplant was 5.6 years. Symptoms included cough (66%), dyspnea (50%), fever (47%), and gastrointestinal upset (44%). Patients received hydroxychloroquine (84%), azithromycin (75%), augmented steroids (44%), tocilizumab (19%), and remdesivir (9%). Eleven patients (34%) died at a median time of 14 days from admission. Complications during admission included: acute kidney injury (63%), transaminitis (31%), shock (31%), acute respiratory distress syndrome (25%), neurological events (25%), arrhythmias (22%), and venous thromboembolism (9%). Compared to patients with moderate COVID‐19, patients with severe COVID‐19 had higher peak white blood cell counts (15.8 vs 7 × 103/uL, P = .019), C‐reactive protein (198 vs. 107 mg/L, P = .010) and D‐dimer (8.6 vs. 2.1 ug/mL, P = .004) levels, and lower nadir lymphocyte counts (0.09 vs. 0.4 × 103/uL, P = .006). COVID‐19 is associated with severe illness and a high mortality rate in lung transplant recipients.

Objective: To determine the optimal surgical strategy for performing tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. Background: Many ventilated COVID-19 patients require prolonged ventilation. We do not know if tracheostomy will improve their care. Given the paucity of data on this topic, the optimal surgical approach has yet to be elucidated. Methods: This is a cohort study of 143 ventilator dependent COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy at an academic medical center from April 15th to May 15th, 2020, with follow up until June 1, 2020. We included adult patients admitted to a NYC medical center with COVID-19 who required invasive mechanical ventilation for greater than 2 weeks who were unable to be extubated and determined to have reasonable chance of recovery and fit defined tracheostomy candidate criteria. Patients underwent either a percutaneous tracheostomy (PT) or open surgical tracheostomy (ST) performed by 1 of 3 surgical services. Results: One hundred forty-three patients underwent tracheostomy, 58 (41%) via a ST, and 85 (59%) via a PT. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the 2 groups, except that more patients who had a history of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation underwent PT (11% vs 2%, P = 0.049). There were no statistical differences observed between the PT and ST groups with regard to bleeding complications (3.5%vs 10.3%, P = 0.099), tracheostomy related complications (5.9% vs 8.6%, P = 0.528), inpatient death (12% vs 5%, P = 0.178), discharge from hospital (39% vs 36%, P = 0.751) or surgeon illness (0% vs 0%, P = 1). Conclusion and Relevance: The rapid formation of a multi-disciplinary team allows for the efficient evaluation and performance of a large volume of tracheostomies in a resource-limited setting. Bedside tracheostomy in COVID-19 does not cause additional harm to patients if performed after 2 weeks from intubation. It also seems to be safe for proceduralists to perform in this timeframe. The manner of tracheostomy does not change outcomes significantly if it is performed safely and efficiently.

Objectives: Venovenous extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal may be lifesaving in the setting of status asthmaticus. Design: Retrospective review. Setting: Medical ICU. Patients: Twenty-six adult patients with status asthmaticus treated with venovenous extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Demographic data and characteristics of current and prior asthma treatments were obtained from the electronic medical record. Mechanical ventilator settings, arterial blood gases, vital signs, and use of vasopressors were collected from the closest time prior to cannulation and 24 hours after initiation of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal settings, including blood flow and sweep gas flow, were collected at 24 hours after initiation of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal. Outcome measures included rates of survival to hospital discharge, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal support, and complications during extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal. Following the initiation of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal, blood gas values were significantly improved at 24 hours, as were peak airway pressures, intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure, and use of vasopressors. Survival to hospital discharge was 100%. Twenty patients (76.9%) were successfully extubated while receiving extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal support; none required reintubation. The most common complication was cannula-associated deep venous thrombosis (six patients, 23.1%). Four patients (15.4%) experienced bleeding that required a transfusion of packed RBCs. Conclusions: In the largest series to date, use of venovenous extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal in patients with status asthmaticus can provide a lifesaving means of support until the resolution of the exacerbation, with an acceptably low rate of complications. Early extubation in select patients receiving extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal is safe and feasible and avoids the deleterious effects of positive-pressure mechanical ventilation in this patient population.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed extraordinary strain on global healthcare systems. Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe respiratory or cardiac failure attributed to COVID-19 has been debated due to uncertain survival benefit and the resources required to safely deliver ECMO support. We retrospectively investigated adult patients supported with ECMO for COVID-19 at our institution during the first 80 days following New York City’s declaration of a state of emergency. The primary objective was to evaluate survival outcomes in patients supported with ECMO for COVID-19 and describe the programmatic adaptations made in response to pandemic-related crisis conditions. Twenty-two patients with COVID-19 were placed on ECMO during the study period. Median age was 52 years and 18 (81.8%) were male. Twenty-one patients (95.4%) had severe ARDS and seven (31.8%) had cardiac failure. Fifteen patients (68.1%) were managed with venovenous ECMO while 7 (31.8%) required arterial support. Twelve patients (54.5%) were transported on ECMO from external institutions. Twelve patients were discharged alive from the hospital (54.5%). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used successfully in patients with respiratory and cardiac failure due to COVID-19. The continued use of ECMO, including ECMO transport, during crisis conditions was possible even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.