AbstractCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), currently a worldwide pandemic, is a viral illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The suspected contribution of thrombotic events to morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients has prompted a search for novel potential options for preventing COVID-19-associated thrombotic disease. In this article by the Global COVID-19 Thrombosis Collaborative Group, we describe novel dosing approaches for commonly used antithrombotic agents (especially heparin-based regimens) and the potential use of less widely used antithrombotic drugs in the absence of confirmed thrombosis. Although these therapies may have direct antithrombotic effects, other mechanisms of action, including anti-inflammatory or antiviral effects, have been postulated. Based on survey results from this group of authors, we suggest research priorities for specific agents and subgroups of patients with COVID-19. Further, we review other agents, including immunomodulators, that may have antithrombotic properties. It is our hope that the present document will encourage and stimulate future prospective studies and randomized trials to study the safety, efficacy, and optimal use of these agents for prevention or management of thrombosis in COVID-19.

Realizing the full potential of iron oxide nanoparticles (IONP) for cancer diagnosis and therapy requires selective tumor cell accumulation. Here, we report a systematic analysis of two key determinants for IONP homing to human breast cancers: (i) particle size and (ii) active vs passive targeting. In vitro, molecular targeting to the HER2 receptor was the dominant factor driving cancer cell association. In contrast, size was found to be the key determinant of tumor accumulation in vivo, where molecular targeting increased tumor tissue concentrations for 30 nm but not 100 nm IONP. Similar to the in vitro results, PEGylation did not influence in vivo IONP biodistribution. Thus, the results reported here indicate that the in vitro advantages of molecular targeting may not consistently extend to pre-clinical in vivo settings. These observations may have important implications for the design and clinical translation of advanced, multifunctional, IONP platforms.

No abstract

No abstract

Background— Utilization of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is expanding despite limited outcome data defining appropriate use. Methods and Results— To quantify determinants of early and 1-year survival after ECMO in adult patients, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 1286 patients aged ≥18 years who underwent ECMO in New York State from 2003 to 2014. Median follow-up time was 4.9 months (range, 0–12 months). ECMO utilization increased from 13 patients in 8 hospitals in 2003 to 330 patients in 30 hospitals in 2014. Compared with patients undergoing ECMO before 2009, later patients were older (54.4 versus 52.3 years; P =0.013) and more likely to have major comorbidity including chronic kidney disease (25.2% versus 13.2%; P =0.02) and liver disease (20.0% versus 10.7%; P =0.001). In the overall cohort, 30-day mortality was 52.2% (95% confidence interval, 49.5–54.9). Mortality at 30 days was 65.2% for patients aged ≥75 years (n=73/112) and 74.6% in patients who required cardiopulmonary resuscitation (n=91/122). Survival at 1 year was 38.4% (95% confidence interval, 35.7–41.0). The 30-day mortality and 1-year survival improved across the study period. In multivariable analysis, earlier year of ECMO, lower hospital volume, indication for ECMO after a cardiac procedure, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ECMO placement, and age >65 years were independent predictors of worse survival. Conclusions— Outcomes of ECMO have improved despite increasing comorbidity. Extreme mortality after ECMO in elderly patients and patients requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation indicates that less invasive therapeutic or palliative modalities may be more appropriate in this end-of-life setting.

Letermovir is a novel agent for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and disease that, unlike traditional CMV DNA polymerase inhibitors, does not carry the risk of myelosuppression. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical application of letermovir for CMV prophylaxis in heart transplant (HT) recipients. Between November 1, 2019, and October 1, 2021, at a single, tertiary care hospital, 17 HT recipients were initiated on letermovir due to leukopenia while on valganciclovir. Fifteen (88%) had high-risk mismatch (CMV D+/R-). Median time on letermovir was 5 months (interquartile range, 2-8 months.) At the end of the study period, nine of 17 patients (52.9%) were still on letermovir and four of the 17 (23.5%) had successfully completed the prophylaxis window on letermovir and been switched to the pre-emptive strategy. One patient developed clinically significant CMV viremia in the setting of being unable to obtain medication due to insurance barriers but was later successfully restarted on letermovir. One patient was unable to tolerate letermovir due to symptoms of headache and myalgias. Two patients developed lowlevel non-clinically significant CMV viremia and were switched back to valacyclovir. All patients had tacrolimus dosages reduced at time of letermovir initiation to minimize the risk of supratherapeutic tacrolimus concentration. One patient required hospitalization due to symptomatic tacrolimus toxicity. For HT recipients who cannot tolerate valganciclovir, letermovir presents an alternative for CMV prophylaxis. Close monitoring for breakthrough CMV and calcineurin inhibitor levels is necessary. Larger studies are required to further delineate its use and help provide further evidence of its safety and efficacy.

Background: An aging population and improved cancer survivorship have increased the number of individuals with treated malignancy who develop advanced heart failure. The benefits of heart transplantation (HT) in patients with a pretransplant malignancy (PTM) must be balanced against risks of posttransplant malignancy in the setting of immunosuppression. Methods: Adult patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry who received HT between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020 were included. Trends, patient characteristics, and posttransplant outcomes in HT recipients with PTM were evaluated. Results: From 2000 to 2020, the proportion of HT recipients with PTM increased from 3.2% to 8.2%. From 2010 to 2020, 2113 (7.7%) of 27 344 HT recipients had PTM. PTM was associated with higher rates of 1-year mortality after HT (11.9% versus 9.2%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.09–1.44], P =0.001), driven by increased mortality in patients with hematologic PTM (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.61–2.48]; P <0.001). For recipients who survived the first year, 5-year survival was similar between patients with and without PTM. Rates of malignancy at 5-years posttransplant were higher in the PTM group (20.4% versus 13.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38–1.79], P <0.001). Conclusions: Prevalence of PTM in HT recipients nearly tripled over the past 2 decades. Patients with hematologic PTM were at increased risk of early mortality after HT. Patients with PTM were also at higher risk for posttransplant malignancy. Guidelines that reflect contemporary oncological care are needed to inform care of this heterogenous and expanding group of individuals.

For patients bridged to transplant (BTT) with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD), data regarding the use of induction immunosuppressive therapy remain limited. The objectives of the current study were to describe the current trends and clinical consequences of IT in patients BTT with LVAD. The United Network of Organ Sharing database was queried to identify adult, single-organ heart transplant recipients who were BTT with LVAD between 2008 and 2018. Propensity score matching was then used to balance clinical covariates between those patient who did and did not receive IT. The primary outcomes of interest were graft survival, hospitalization for rejection and infection, and freedom from transplant coronary artery disease (TCAD). In the overall cohort, 49.1% (n = 3,978) received IT, with basiliximab being the most commonly used agent followed by antithymocyte globulin. After propensity score matching, 4,388 patients (2,194 without induction and 2,194 with induction) were identified. Between those who did and did not receive IT, there was no significant difference in graft survival, freedom from hospitalization for rejection, and freedom from hospitalization for infection. Patients who received IT experienced increased freedom from TCAD (p = 0.004) with unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% Cardiac Index: 0.70–0.93). For freedom from TCAD, antithymocyte globulin was associated with better outcomes than basiliximab (80.2% vs. 73.1% at 5 years, log rank p value = 0.004). In a sensitivity analysis, there was no significant increase in hospitalization for infection in those patients with an infected LVAD before transplant. Use of induction therapy in patients BTT with LVAD appears to be safe and feasible, without a significant increase in the risk of infection or rejection, even in those patients with pretransplant device-related infections. IT, particularly antithymocyte globulin, was associated with increased time to development of TCAD. Routine use of IT in patients BTT with LVAD may be considered, and further randomized control trials are warranted to further support these data.