We demonstrate that the presence of an altered microbiome in severe OSA is associated with inflammatory markers. Further experimental approaches to explore causal links are needed.

Introduction: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as a refractory treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but there has been little evidence of its efficacy.We conducted this study to share our experience using ECMO as a bridge to recovery for ARDS due to COVID-19.Methods: All adult patients who were placed on ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19 between April 2020 and June 2020 (during the first wave of COVID-19) were identified. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of these patients were analyzed with a specific focus on the differences between patients who survived to hospital discharge and those who did not.Results: In total, 20 COVID-19 patients were included in this study. All patients were placed on veno-veno ECMO. Comparing survivors and non-survivors, older age was found to be associated with hospital mortality (p = .02). The following complications were observed: renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (35%, n = 7), bacteremia during ECMO (20%, n = 4), coinfection with bacterial pneumonia (15%, n = 3), cannula site bleeding (15%, n = 3), stroke (10%, n = 2), gastrointestinal bleeding (10%, n = 2), and liver failure (5%, n = 1). The complications associated with patient mortality were culture-positive septic shock (p = .01), culture-negative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (p = .01), and renal failure (p = .01). The causes of death were septic shock (44%, n = 4), culture-negative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (44%, n = 4), and stroke (11%, n = 1).Conclusions: Based on our experience, ECMO can improve refractory ARDS due to COVID-19 in select patients. Proper control of bacterial infections during COVID-19 immunomodulation therapy may be critical to improving survival.

Purpose: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a refractory treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, also referred to as coronavirus disease 2019 ). We conducted this study to compare the outcomes of influenza patients treated with veno-venous-ECMO (VV-ECMO) to COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO, during the first wave of COVID-19.Methods: Patients in our institution with ARDS due to COVID-19 or influenza who were placed on ECMO between August 1, 2010 and September 15, 2020 were included in this comparative, retrospective study. To improve homogeneity, only VV-ECMO patients were analyzed. The clinical characteristics and outcomes were extracted and analyzed.Results: A total of 28 COVID-19 patients and 17 influenza patients were identified and included. ECMO survival rates were 68% (19/28) in COVID-19 patients and 94% (16/17) in influenza patients (p = .04). Thirty days survival rates after ECMO decannulation were 54% (15/28) in COVID-19 patients and 76% (13/17) in influenza patients (p = .13). COVID-19 patients spent a longer time on ECMO compared to flu patients (21 vs. 12 days; p = .025), and more COVID-19 patients (26/28 vs. 2/17) were on immunomodulatory therapy before ECMO initiation (p < .001). COVID-19 patients had higher rates of new infections during ECMO (50% vs. 18%; p = .03) and bacterial pneumonia (36% vs. 6%; p = .024).Conclusions: COVID-19 patients who were treated in our institution with VV-ECMO had statistically lower ECMO survival rates than influenza patients. It is possible that COVID-19 immunomodulation therapies may increase the risk of other superimposed infections.

Purpose: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a refractory treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, also referred to as COVID-19). We conducted this study to compare the outcomes of influenza patients treated with veno-venous-ECMO (VV-ECMO) to COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO, during the first wave of COVID-19. Materials and Methods: Patients in our institution with ARDS due to COVID-19 or influenza who were placed on ECMO between August 1, 2010 and September 15, 2020 were included in this comparative, retrospective study. To improve homogeneity, only VV -ECMO patients were analyzed. The clinical characteristics and outcomes were extracted and analyzed. Results: 28 COVID-19 patients and 17 influenza patients were identified and included. ECMO survival rates were 68% (19/28) in COVID-19 patients and 94% (16/17) in influenza patients (p=0.04). 30-day survival rates after ECMO decannulation were 54% (15/28) in COVID-19 patients and 76% (13/17) in influenza patients (p=0.13). COVID-19 patients spent a longer time on ECMO compared to flu patients (21 days vs. 12 days, p=0.025), and more COVID-19 patients (26/28 vs. 2/17) were on immunomodulatory therapy prior to ECMO initiation (p<0.001). COVID-19 patients had higher rates of new infections during ECMO (50% vs. 18%, p=0.03) and bacterial pneumonia (36% vs 6%, p=0.024). Conclusions: COVID-19 patients who were treated in our institution with VV-ECMO had statistically lower ECMO survival rates than influenza patients. It is possible that COVID-19 immunomodulation therapies may increase the risk of other superimposed infections.

Introduction Restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) are two disease processes that are known to progress to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Pharmacologic therapies for HFpEF have not improved patient outcomes or reduced mortality in this patient cohort; thus, there continues to be substantial interest in other treatment strategies, including surgical interventions and devices. In this article, we explore and report the current utility of percutaneous therapies and surgically implanted mechanical support in the treatment of patients with HFpEF. Results Treatment strategies include percutaneous interventions with interatrial shunts, left atrial assist devices (LAADs), and ventricular assist devices (VADs) in various configurations. Although VADs have been employed to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, their efficacy is limited in those with RCM and HCM. A left atrial‐to‐aortic VAD has been proposed to directly unload the left atrium, but data is limited. Alternatively, a LAAD could be placed in the mitral position and simultaneously unload the left atrium, while filling the left ventricle. Conclusion A left atrial assist device in the mitral position is a promising solution to address the hemodynamic abnormalities in RCM and HCM; these pumps, however, are still under development.