Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation using magnetic levitation centrifugal pumps for fulminant myocarditis in infants, children and young adults.
Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is a potentially lethal disease with a wide spectrum of clinical presentation, thus making the diagnosis hard to depict. In cases where acute circulatory failure occurs venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is a valid management strategy, especially in the pediatric and adult patients. This study aims to report the results of VA ECMO for FM in our Institution.
Between April 2009 and January 2021, 17 consecutive patients presenting with FM were supported using VA ECMO. We collected data dividing the population between infants, children and young adults. There were 8 male and 9 female patients, median age of 5.2 years [interquartile range (IQR), 2 months to 32 years] and median body weight of 16 kg (IQR, 3.8-56 kg). FM etiology was viral in 8 patients (47%), bacterial in 1 (6%), 2 giant cellular myocarditis (12%) and in 6 patients (35%) the etiology was unknown. Where it was possible also a cardiac biopsy was performed, usually during ECMO or vent implant. The endpoints of the study are: survival, incidence of ECMO-related complications, weaning rate from ECMO, recovery of cardiac function and the association between rescue ECMO (r-ECMO) and no-weaning/mortality. For the survival analysis we divided the population into three groups: infants (0-2 months; n=5), children (2-6 years; n=5) and young adults (24-40 years; n=7).
After a median duration of 168 hours (IQR, 120-240 hours), 13 patients were weaned from support (weaning rate 76 %), 2 (12%) underwent respectively cardiac transplantation and Bi-Vad Berlin Heart implantation and 2 (12%) died while on ECMO support. Bleeding occurred in 6 (35%) patients, infection in 8 (47%) and 5 (29%), all of them infants, required peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury. Overall mortality was 35% (6/17 patients): two patients died during ECMO support due to persistent cardiac failure, arrhythmias and bleeding; three patients died after ECMO weaning (2 due to recurrent ventricular failure and 1 for respiratory complications) and 1 died due to multi-organ failure (MOF) after Bi-VAD implantation. Overall survival at follow-up was 65%, with a statistically significant difference (P=0.05) between age groups: in the infant group was 20% (1/5), in the children group 60% (3/5) and in the adult group 100% (7/7). There was no association between r-ECMO and weaning failure (P=0.55) or hospital mortality (P>0.99). During a median follow-up of 76 months (IQR, 52-99 months), there were no late deaths, 1 patient presented a minor neurological sequela, while cardiac function had fully recovered in all late survivors.
The present experience shows that VA ECMO is an effective bridge to myocardial function recovery in patients with FM, including those with circulatory collapse. The rate of hospital complications is decent when in light of the otherwise fatal course of the disease.
Hoxha S
，Poretti G
，Gardellini J
，Tonelli F
，De Laurentis E
，Parolo M
，Menon T
，Prioli AM
，Luciani GB
... -
《Translational Pediatrics》
Treatment time limit for successful weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock.
Knowing the upper time limit for successful weaning from temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock will help with decision-making regarding advanced heart failure (HF) therapy or considering withdrawal of care. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the support duration and successful weaning from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock.
A retrospective single-centre cohort study was conducted between January 2013 and June 2023. It included 100 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock who were treated with VA-ECMO. Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were excluded. The primary outcome was successful weaning from VA-ECMO (i.e., VA-ECMO decannulation and survival to discharge). The association between the length of support duration and the weaning success rate was analysed. Patients were divided into three groups according to ECMO support duration: Group A (≤7 days), Group B (8-14 days), and Group C (≥15 days). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the impact of the length of support duration on successful weaning of VA-ECMO. The median age was 67 years, and 73% of study participants were male. The underlying aetiologies of cardiogenic shock were as follows: acute myocardial infarction, 50; fulminant myocarditis, 19; cardiomyopathy, 15; valvular heart disease, 8; and other, 8. Seventy-five patients (75%) were attempted to wean VA-ECMO, and 67 moved on to decannulation. In total, 43 (43%) patients were successfully weaned from VA-ECMO. The median length of ECMO support duration was 8 [3-15] days. Compared with those who underwent successful ECMO decannulation, those who did not had a significantly longer support duration of VA-ECMO (5 [3-9] days vs. 12 [3-22] days, P = 0.004). The weaning success rate was significantly higher in patients with short support duration; 58% (29/50), 40% (10/25), 16% (4/25) in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (P = 0.002). Overall, none of the patients supported for over 24 days (0/11) were successfully weaned from VA-ECMO. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the length of support duration was independently associated with successful weaning after adjusting for age, sex, underlying aetiology, and left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio, 0.813 [per 3 days]; 95% confidence interval, 0.679-0.914; P = 0.025).
Long support duration of VA-ECMO was significantly associated with a low rate of successful weaning in patients with cardiogenic shock. Patients who require VA-ECMO for over 1 week should start considering advanced HF therapy or withdrawal of care.
Suzuki S
，Ito K
，Teraoka N
，Okuma Y
，Kimura K
，Minamisawa M
，Ebisawa S
，Motoki H
，Imamura H
，Seto T
，Kuwahara K
... -
《ESC Heart Failure》
The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints.
To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test.
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.
We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period.
Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics.
This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2).
When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.
Davenport C
，Arevalo-Rodriguez I
，Mateos-Haro M
，Berhane S
，Dinnes J
，Spijker R
，Buitrago-Garcia D
，Ciapponi A
，Takwoingi Y
，Deeks JJ
，Emperador D
，Leeflang MMG
，Van den Bruel A
，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
