Citations

Introduction Postcardiotomy veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A-ECMO) is associated with significant mortality. Identification of patients at very high risk for death is elusive and the decision to initiate V-A-ECMO is based on clinical judgment. The prognostic impact of pre-V-A-ECMO arterial lactate level in these critically ill patients has been herein evaluated. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify studies on postcardiotomy VA-ECMO for the present individual patient data meta-analysis. Results Overall, 1269 patients selected from 10 studies were included in this analysis. Arterial lactate level at V-A-ECMO initiation was increased in patients who died during the index hospitalization compared to those who survived (9.3 vs 6.6 mmol/L, p < 0.0001). Accordingly, in hospital mortality increased along quintiles of pre-V-A-ECMO arterial lactate level (quintiles: 1, 54.9%; 2, 54.9%; 3, 67.3%; 4, 74.2%; 5, 82.2%, p < 0.0001). The best cut-off for arterial lactate was 6.8 mmol/L (in-hospital mortality, 76.7% vs. 55.7%, p < 0.0001). Multivariable multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model including arterial lactate level significantly increased the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (0.731, 95% CI 0.702–0.760 vs 0.679, 95% CI 0.648–0.711, DeLong test p < 0.0001). Classification and regression tree analysis showed the in-hospital mortality was 85.2% in patients aged more than 70 years with pre-V-A-ECMO arterial lactate level ≥6.8 mmol/L. Conclusions Among patients requiring postcardiotomy V-A-ECMO, hyperlactatemia was associated with a marked increase of in-hospital mortality. Arterial lactate may be useful in guiding the decision-making process and the timing of initiation of postcardiotomy V-A-ECMO.

Abstract Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Background: COVID-19 is associated with higher morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic liver diseases (CLDs). However, our understanding of the long-term outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with CLD is limited. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of adult patients with CLD who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before May 30, 2020, to determine long-term clinical outcomes. We used a control group of patients with CLD confirmed negative for COVID-19. Results: We followed 666 patients with CLD (median age 58 years, 52.8% male) for a median of 384 (interquartile range: 31–462) days. The long-term mortality was 8.1%; with 3.6% experiencing delayed COVID-19-related mortality. Compared to a propensity-matched control group of patients with CLD without COVID-19 (n=1332), patients with CLD with COVID-19 had worse long-term survival [p<0.001; hazards ratio (HR): 1.69; 95% CI: 1.19–2.41] and higher rate of hospitalization (p<0.001, HR: 2.00, 1.62–2.48) over a 1-year follow-up period. Overall, 29.9% of patients reported symptoms of long-COVID-19. On multivariable analysis, female sex (p=0.05, HR: 2.45, 1.01–2.11), Hispanic ethnicity (p=0.003, HR: 1.94, 1.26–2.99), and severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation (p=0.028, HR: 1.74, 1.06–2.86) predicted long-COVID-19. In survivors, liver-related laboratory parameters showed significant improvement after COVID-19 resolution. COVID-19 vaccine status was available for 72% (n=470) of patients with CLD and history of COVID-19, of whom, 70% (n=326) had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions: Our large, longitudinal, multicenter study demonstrates a high burden of long-term mortality and morbidity in patients with CLD and COVID-19. Symptoms consistent with long-COVID-19 were present in 30% of patients with CLD. These results illustrate the prolonged implications of COVID-19 both for recovering patients and for health care systems.

Abstract Neurofilament light chain, a putative measure of neuronal damage, is measurable in blood and CSF and is predictive of cognitive function in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. There has been limited prior work linking neurofilament light and functional connectivity, and no prior work has investigated neurofilament light associations with functional connectivity in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease. Here, we assessed relationships between blood neurofilament light, cognition, and functional connectivity in a cross-sectional sample of 106 autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease mutation carriers and 76 non-carriers. We employed an innovative network-level enrichment analysis approach to assess connectome-wide associations with neurofilament light. Neurofilament light was positively correlated with deterioration of functional connectivity within the default mode network and negatively correlated with connectivity between default mode network and executive control networks, including the cingulo-opercular, salience, and dorsal attention networks. Further, reduced connectivity within the default mode network and between the default mode network and executive control networks was associated with reduced cognitive function. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that neurofilament levels and functional connectivity within the default mode network and between the default mode network and the dorsal attention network explained significant variance in cognitive composite scores when controlling for age, sex, and education. A mediation analysis demonstrated that functional connectivity within the default mode network and between the default mode network and dorsal attention network partially mediated the relationship between blood neurofilament light levels and cognitive function. Our novel results indicate that blood estimates of neurofilament levels correspond to direct measurements of brain dysfunction, shedding new light on the underlying biological processes of Alzheimer’s disease. Further, we demonstrate how variation within key brain systems can partially mediate the negative effects of heightened total serum neurofilament levels, suggesting potential regions for targeted interventions. Finally, our results lend further evidence that low-cost and minimally invasive blood measurements of neurofilament may be a useful marker of brain functional connectivity and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease.

Background: It is unclear whether peripheral arterial cannulation is superior to central arterial cannulation for postcardiotomy veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies on postcardiotomy VA-ECMO for the present individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: The investigators of 10 studies agreed to participate in the present IPD meta-analysis. Overall, 1269 patients were included in the analysis. Crude rates of in-hospital mortality after central versus peripheral arterial cannulation for VA-ECMO were 70.7% vs. 63.7%, respectively (adjusted OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08–1.75). Propensity score matching yielded 538 pairs of patients with balanced baseline characteristics and operative variables. Among these matched cohorts, central arterial cannulation VA-ECMO was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to peripheral arterial cannulation VA-ECMO (64.5% vs. 70.8%, p = 0.027). These findings were confirmed by aggregate data meta-analysis, which showed that central arterial cannulation was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality compared to peripheral arterial cannulation (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04–1.76, I2 21%). Conclusions: Among patients requiring postcardiotomy VA-ECMO, central arterial cannulation was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality compared to peripheral arterial cannulation. This increased risk is of limited magnitude, and further studies are needed to confirm the present findings and to identify the mechanisms underlying the potential beneficial effects of peripheral VA-ECMO.

Abstract There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P &amp;lt; .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P &amp;lt; .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P &amp;lt; .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.