COVID-19 era: time for temporary mechanical circulatory support?
Authors: Alonso Fernandez De Gatta M , Diego Nieto A , Merchan Gomez S , Gonzalez Cebrian M , Toranzo Nieto I , Martin Herrero F , Barrio A , Rodriguez Estevez L , Sanchez PL 
Published: April 2021

Abstract

Funding Acknowledgements
Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Instituto de Salud Carlos III in Spain (Co-funded by European Social Fund "Investing in your future").
INTRODUCTION
The Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted clinical practice with important changes in the most affected areas, resulting in increased mortality from heart disease (myocardial infarction). The feasibility of continuing a temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) program is unknown.
PURPOSE
Our objective was to analyze the survival of patients requiring short-term MCS with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or Impella CP® during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
Retrospective study including all VA-ECMO and Impella CP® implants in a referral hospital since March 2020 compared to previous implants results.
RESULTS
Out of 167 short-term MCS implanted from 2013, 25 (15%) were conducted during the time of COVID-19 pandemic: 19 VA-ECMO and 6 Impella CP® (Table).
Compared to preCOVID-19 implants, patients requiring MCS in the COVID era presented more frequently right ventricular dysfunction (p = 0.005) and showed a trend towards older age (p = 0.069) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.063), without other significant differences regarding the baseline situation and implant technique (Table). Encephalopathy was more frequent in the COVID-19 era, with no differences in other complications (Table).
Survival at discharge was 43.7% in the pre-COVID era vs 36% during COVID-19 pandemic, without finding statistically significant differences (p = 0.313).

CONCLUSION
Survival after temporary MCS did not get worse significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The possibility of short-term MCS should be maintained for cardiogenic shock and other cases of hemodynamic instability. Comparison MCS before and during COVIDTime of implantP valueTime of implantP valuePre-COVID-192013-Feb 2020 (n = 142)COVID-19 timeMarch 2020-Nov 2020 (n = 25)Pre-COVID-192013-Feb 2020 (n = 142)COVID-19 timeMarch 2020-Nov 2020 (n = 25)Age (years) (mean+ SD)Male (n, %)62 ± 10 108 (76%)66 ± 10 15 (60%)0.069 0.079Support type VA-ECMO (n = 137) Impella CP® (n = 30) Percutaneous implant 118 (83.1%)24 (16.9%) 100 (70.4% 19 (76%) 6 (24%) 20 (80%)0.566 0.536Indication (n,%) Cardiogenic shock Refractory cardiac arrest Electrical storm0.63763 (44.4%)16 (11.3%)9 (6.3%)12 (48%) 4 (16%)2 (8%)Drugs at the implant Noradrenaline Dobutamine Adrenaline 115 (81%)114 (80.3%)51 (35.9%) 21 (84%) 21 (84%) 5 (20%) 0.370 0.312 0.108High-risk PCI Postcardiotomy shock Others17 (12%)36 (25.4%)1 (0.7%)3 (12%)4 (16%) 0 (0%)Time MCS (days)4.8 ± 53.9 ± 40.284 7.23 ± 0.16.8 ± 5 0.2920.495Complications (n,%) Vascular (bleeding, ischemia) Bleeding (minor or major) Critical care infections 35 (24.6%)59 (41.5%)67 (47.2%) 7 (28%) 9 (36%) 9 (36%) 0.096 0.117 0.096pH (mean + SD)lactate (mmol/L) (mean + SD)7.13 ± 16.03 ± 5LVEF (%) (mean + SD)Right ventricle dysfunction (n,%)28.7 ± 16 68 (47.9%)21.9 ± 15 20 (80%)0.063 0.005Ischemic/hemorragic stroke Renal replacement therapy Tracheostomy Encephalopathy9 (6.3%) 36 (25.4%) 23 (16.2%)14 (9.8%)2 (8%) 4 (16%) 5 (20%) 6 (24%)0.220 0.136 0.547 0.023Preimplant cardiac arrest (n,%)Cardiac arrest duration (min) (n,%)68 (47.9%) 28.7 ± 2312 (48%) 29.8 ± 230.364 0.880Survival at discharge (n,%)62 (43.7%)9 (36%)0.313