Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill patients with coronavirus-associated disease 2019: an updated perspective of the European experience

Marullo, Antonino G. M.; Cavarretta, Elena; Zoccai, Giuseppe Biondi; Mancone, Massimo; Peruzzi, Mariangela; Piscioneri, Fernando; Sartini, Patrizio; Versaci, Francesco; Morelli, Andrea; Miraldi, Fabio; Frati, Giacomo

doi:10.23736/s0026-4725.20.05328-1

Cited by 45 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 102 articles were retrieved from the database search and snowballing. Following the exclusion of duplicates and screening, a total of 25 articles were selected for inclusion in this systematic review 6‐30 (Figure 1). The characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID‐19: A systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We aimed to examine the literature evidence behind using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID‐19 patients in a systematic review manner. Methods We conducted a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on Global Health Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases using keywords and MeSH terms to identify articles pertaining to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). A narrative synthesis was then undertaken to identify the key themes. Results A total of 25 articles met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Three main themes were identified following the data extraction: (a) evidence against/inconclusive regarding ECMO for COVID‐19, (b) evidence supporting ECMO for COVID‐19, and finally (c) VV‐ECMO and VA‐ECMO. After combining the data, there were 3428 patients diagnosed with COVID‐19 and 95 ECMO‐associated deaths (19.83%). Conclusion Our study highlights the paucity of evidence and the need for further data to consolidate the efficacy of ECMO in improving patient outcomes. Although ECMO has been shown to be beneficial in a selected group of patients, the recuperative effects of ECMO remain inconclusive. We must ensure that risk‐benefit analysis for each candidate is conducted thoroughly so that patients that have increased probability of survival can benefit from this scarce resource.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID‐19: A systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Smoking represents one of the leading causes of preventable morbidity and mortality worldwide, causing a plethora of adverse medical conditions, including coronary artery disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer, and its detrimental effects impact also on passive smokers [1•, 2-5]. Even in the current coronavirus-associated disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, smokers, especially the elderly, appear to have an increased risk of getting infected, progressing toward severely symptomatic disease, and dying due to severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection [6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaping Cardiovascular Health Risks: an Updated Umbrella Review

Peruzzi

Biondi‐Zoccai

Carnevale

et al. 2020

Curr Emerg Hosp Med Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review Modified risk products (MRP) such as electronic vaping cigarettes (EVC) and heat-not-burn cigarettes (HNBC) are alternatives to traditional combustion cigarettes (TCC) with an expanding consumer base. Yet, their cardiovascular health risks are still unclear. We aimed to summarize the evidence base on this topic by conducting an updated umbrella review. Recent Findings We identified 7 systematic reviews, totaling 183 studies and reports, ranging from in vitro and in animal studies to clinical studies in apparently healthy volunteers and patients at risk of cardiovascular disease. Overall, acute EVC use was associated with several toxic effects at molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, and system level. In addition, EVC impacted adversely on blood pressure (BP) management, caused tachycardia, and worsened arterial stiffness. Finally, EVC use was associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical events, including atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction, even if the causal link is still debated. Most reviews highlighted that the detrimental impact of EVC was of lesser magnitude of that of TCC. In addition, the differential impact of liquids and nicotine was not clearly disentangled. Finally, no review included studies on HNBC. Summary The present umbrella review suggests that EVC, and likely HNBC, despite clearly causing an increase in overall cardiovascular risk, may represent a temporary lesser evil than TCC in a risk-reduction or risk-modification strategy, aiming for eventual abstinence from all tobacco or nicotine products. Keywords Cardiovascular disease. Electronic cigarette. Electronic vaping cigarette. Heat-not-burn cigarette. Smoking Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times.

show abstract

“…Without being overly provocative, we suggest that controlled trials could be envisioned to identify the best management strategy for future recurrences of COVID-19 outbreaks, for instance comparing in nearby provinces or counties more vs less forceful mitigation efforts, while measuring clinical, environmental and economic consequences of such actions [ 34 , 35 ]. Finally, without supporting any effort at reducing acute cardiac care capabilities, it is clear that local COVID-19 epidemics could be managed by temporarily repurposing cardiovascular units devoted to elective or semi-urgent cases, especially when improvements in pollution are expected, given the expected need for intensive care management of high-risk COVID-19 patients [ 36 , 37 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%