Background: Solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection is extremely rare but can occur. T-cell recognition of antigen is the primary and central event that leads to the cascade of events that result in rejection of a transplanted organ. Objectives: To describe the results of a systematic review for solid organ rejections following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection. Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for studies on the incidence of solid organ rejection post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COVID-19 infection, published from 1 December 2019 to 31 May 2022, with English language restriction. Results: One hundred thirty-six cases from fifty-two articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review (56 solid organs rejected post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and 40 solid organs rejected following COVID-19 infection). Cornea rejection (44 cases) was the most frequent organ observed post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and following COVID-19 infection, followed by kidney rejection (36 cases), liver rejection (12 cases), lung rejection (2 cases), heart rejection (1 case) and pancreas rejection (1 case). The median or mean patient age ranged from 23 to 94 years across the studies. The majority of the patients were male (n = 51, 53.1%) and were of White (Caucasian) (n = 51, 53.7%) and Hispanic (n = 15, 15.8%) ethnicity. A total of fifty-six solid organ rejections were reported post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 31), Moderna (n = 14), Oxford Uni-AstraZeneca (n = 10) and Sinovac-CoronaVac (n = 1)]. The median time from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to organ rejection was 13.5 h (IQR, 3.2–17.2), while the median time from COVID-19 infection to organ rejection was 14 h (IQR, 5–21). Most patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term allograft rejection therapy [graft success (n = 70, 85.4%), graft failure (n = 12, 14.6%), survived (n = 90, 95.7%) and died (n = 4, 4.3%)]. Conclusion: The reported evidence of solid organ rejections post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or COIVD-19 infection should not discourage vaccination against this worldwide pandemic. The number of reported cases is relatively small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred, and the protective benefits offered by SARS-CoV-2 vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Background Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as a rescue strategy in patients with severe with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there has been little evidence of its efficacy. Objectives To describe the effect of ECMO rescue therapy on patient-important outcomes in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2. Methods A case series study was conducted for the laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients who were admitted to the ICUs of 22 Saudi hospitals, between March 1, 2020, and October 30, 2020, by reviewing patient’s medical records prospectively. Results ECMO use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (40.2% vs. 48.9%; p = 0.000); lower COVID-19 virological cure (41.3% vs 14.1%, p = 0.000); and longer hospitalization (20.2 days vs 29.1 days; p = 0.000), ICU stay (12.6 vs 26 days; p = 0.000) and mechanical ventilation use (14.2 days vs 22.4 days; p = 0.000) compared to non-ECMO group. Also, there was a high number of patients with septic shock (19.6%) and multiple organ failure (10.9%); and more complications occurred at any time during hospitalization [pneumothorax (5% vs 29.3%, p = 0.000), bleeding requiring blood transfusion (7.1% vs 38%, p = 0.000), pulmonary embolism (6.4% vs 15.2%, p = 0.016), and gastrointestinal bleeding (3.3% vs 8.7%, p = 0.017)] in the ECMO group. However, PaO2 was significantly higher in the 72-h post-ECMO initiation group and PCO2 was significantly lower in the 72-h post-ECMO start group than those in the 12-h pre-ECMO group (62.9 vs. 70 mmHg, p = 0.002 and 61.8 vs. 51 mmHg, p = 0.042, respectively). Conclusion Following the use of ECMO, the mortality rate of patients and length of ICU and hospital stay were not improved. However, these findings need to be carefully interpreted, as most of our cohort patients were relatively old and had multiple severe comorbidities. Future randomized trials, although challenging to conduct, are highly needed to confirm or dispute reported observations.