There are limited data on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for pregnant and peripartum women with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Pregnant women may exhibit more severe infections with COVID-19, requiring intensive care. We supported nine pregnant or peripartum women with COVID-19 ARDS with ECMO, all surviving and suffering no major complications from ECMO. Our case series demonstrates high-maternal survival rates with ECMO support in the management of COVID-19 associated severe ARDS, highlighting that these pregnant and postpartum patients should be supported with ECMO during this pandemic.

BackgroundTopical hemostatic agents are used to reduce bleeding and transfusion need during cardiothoracic surgery. We report our experience with Arista® AH Absorbable Hemostatic Particles (Arista® AH), a novel plant-based microporous polysaccharide hemostatic powder.MethodsData were retrospectively collected for patients (n = 240) that received cardiothoracic surgery at our institution from January 2009 to January 2013 with (n = 103) or without (n = 137) the use of Arista® AH. Endpoints included protamine to skin closure time (hemostasis time), cardiopulmonary bypass time, quantity of Arista® AH applied, intraoperative blood product usage, intraoperative blood loss, chest tube output 48 hours postoperatively, blood products required 48 hours postoperatively, length of stay in the intensive care unit, 30-day morbidity, and 30-day mortality.Results240 patients (176 M: 64 F) underwent 240 cardiothoracic procedures including heart transplantation (n = 53), cardiac assist devices (n = 113), coronary artery bypass grafts (n = 20), valve procedures (n = 19), lung transplantation (n = 17), aortic dissection (n = 8), and other (n = 10). Application of Arista® AH led to significant reduction in hemostasis time versus the untreated control group (Arista® AH: 93.4 ± 41 min. vs. Control: 107.6 ± 56 min., p = 0.02). Postoperative chest tube output in the first 48 hours was also significantly reduced (Arista® AH: 1594 ± 949 mL vs. Control: 2112 ± 1437 mL, p < 0.001), as well as transfusion of packed red blood cells (Arista® AH: 2.4 ± 2.5 units vs. Control: 4.0 ± 5.1 units, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or postoperative complications.ConclusionUse of Arista® AH in complex cardiothoracic surgery resulted in a significant reduction in hemostasis time, postoperative chest tube output, and need for postoperative blood transfusion.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are well established in the treatment of advanced heart failure, but it is unclear whether outcomes are different based on the intended goal of therapy in patients who are eligible vs ineligible for heart transplant. OBJECTIVE To determine whether clinical outcomes in the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial differed by preoperative categories of bridge to transplant (BTT) or bridge to transplant candidacy (BTC) vs destination therapy (DT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study was a prespecified secondary analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD to the axial-flow HeartMate II (HMII) pump. It was conducted in 69 centers with expertise in managing patients with advanced heart failure in the United States. Patients with advanced heart failure were randomized to an LVAD, irrespective of the intended goal of therapy (BTT/BTC or DT). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to remove or replace a malfunctioning device at 2 years. Secondary end points included adverse events, functional status, and quality of life. RESULTS Of the 1020 patients with implants (515 with HM3 devices [50.5%] and 505 with HMII devices [49.5%]), 396 (38.8%) were in the BTT/BTC group (mean [SD] age, 55 [12] years; 310 men [78.3%]) and 624 (61.2%) in the DT group (mean [SD] age, 63 [12] years; 513 men [82.2%]). Of the patients initially deemed as transplant ineligible, 84 of 624 patients (13.5%) underwent heart transplant within 2 years of LVAD implant. In the primary end point analysis, HM3 use was superior to HMII use in patients in the BTT/BTC group (76.8% vs 67.3% for survival free of disabling stroke and reoperation; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40-0.94]; log-rank P = .02) and patients in the DT group (73.2% vs 58.7%; hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.46-0.81]; log-rank P < .001). For patients in both BTT/BTC and DT groups, there were not significantly different reductions in rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding with HM3 use relative to HMII use. Improvements in quality of life and functional capacity for either pump were not significantly different regardless of preimplant strategy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, the superior treatment effect of HM3 over HMII was similar for patients in the BTT/BTC or DT groups. It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure.