No abstract

Objective Myocardial damage occurs in up to 25% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) cases. While veno‐venous extracorporeal life support (V‐V ECLS) is used as respiratory support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be required for severe cardiac dysfunction. This systematic review summarizes the available literature regarding MCS use rates, disease drivers for MCS initiation, and MCS outcomes in COVID‐19 patients. Methods PubMed/EMBASE were searched until October 14, 2021. Articles including adults receiving ECLS for COVID‐19 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of MCS use. Secondary outcomes included mortality at follow‐up, ECLS conversion rate, intubation‐to‐cannulation time, time on ECLS, cardiac diseases, use of inotropes, and vasopressors. Results Twenty‐eight observational studies (comprising both ECLS‐only populations and ECLS patients as part of larger populations) included 4218 COVID‐19 patients (females: 28.8%; median age: 54.3 years, 95%CI: 50.7–57.8) of whom 2774 (65.8%) required ECLS with the majority (92.7%) on V‐V ECLS, 4.7% on veno‐arterial ECLS and/or Impella, and 2.6% on other ECLS. Acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest were reported in 7.8%, 9.7%, and 6.6% of patients, respectively. Vasopressors were used in 37.2%. Overall, 3.1% of patients required an ECLS change from V‐V ECLS to MCS for heart failure, myocarditis, or myocardial infarction. The median ECLS duration was 15.9 days (95%CI: 13.9–16.3), with an overall survival of 54.6% and 28.1% in V‐V ECLS and MCS patients. One study reported 61.1% survival with oxy‐right ventricular assist device. Conclusion MCS use for cardiocirculatory compromise has been reported in 7.3% of COVID‐19 patients requiring ECLS, which is a lower percentage compared to the incidence of any severe cardiocirculatory complication. Based on the poor survival rates, further investigations are warranted to establish the most appropriated indications and timing for MCS in COVID‐19.

Elemental diets, dietary elimination, and steroid therapies are the most common therapies in the clinical trials for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Histological findings (usually reported as eosinophils per microscopic high‐powered field [hpf]) remain the most common end‐point used to define response. Yet, the threshold for defining “response” and “remission” are ill‐defined among consensus guidelines and may vary from study to study. We conducted a systematic literature review of articles on eosinophilic esophagitis, published between January 2007 and November 2017, considering histological remission as the primary outcome. We abstracted treatment information and definitions of histological remission or response. A comparison of definitions of histological remission across and within institutions was performed. A total of 61 articles were included in this review, with approximately 60% of the studies published from centers in the United States. Histological definitions of remission of EoE ranged from 0 to ≤20 eosinophils/hpf. The most stringent criteria, ranging from 0 to ≤5 eosinophils/hpf, were commonly used in interventional trial studies that examined the effects of new treatments. We found remarkable variability in definitions between studies, treatment types, and regions. Age or epidemiological distribution of study subjects did not influence the criteria for histological remission. Clinical and histological improvements are important measures of the effects of treatment. Histological findings, the most objective measure of treatment, should provide an optimal method for comparing the effectiveness of various treatments. Yet, our findings suggest a lack of consistent remission criteria in published studies. Considering these inconsistencies, it is difficult to compare the effectiveness of various treatments.

Background: Worse outcomes in women compared to men undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remain an underestimated problem in heart failure (HF) patients. With device miniaturization, less-invasive LVAD implantation techniques have gained relevance, but their impact on outcomes in women is unknown. This study investigates sex-related differences in patients undergoing LVAD implantation through less-invasive procedures.Methods: This retrospective single-center cohort study included patients who underwent isolated LVAD implantation between 2011 and 2018 through less-invasive techniques. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to balance preoperative heterogeneity. Primary endpoint was two-year survival, and secondary endpoints included long-term survival, surgical outcomes and postoperative adverse events. Results: Baseline analysis of 191 patients (females 18.3%) showed differences in terms of age [female (median, 52; IQR, 47-61); male (median, 58.5; IQR, 49-66); P=0.005], underlying diagnosis (P<0.001), INTERMACS profile (P=0.009), history of previous cardiac surgery (P=0.049) and preoperative creatinine values [female (median, 110; IQR, 71-146); male (median, 126; IQR, 9-168); P=0.049]. Over a follow-up of 460.68 patient-years, Kaplan-Meyer analysis showed better survival in females (P=0.027) and a similarprobability of cardiac transplantation (P=0.288). After PSM, females showed higher needs for intraoperative fresh frozen plasma (P=0.044) and platelets (P=0.001) but comparable postoperative outcomes. No sexrelated differences were noticed regarding two-year outcomes, long-term survival and adverse events. LVADrelated infections remained the most common complication with males experiencing more pump infections than women (P=0.050).Conclusions: Patients receiving less-invasive LVAD implantation do not show significant sex-related differences in short and long-term outcomes and survival. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the role of less-invasive techniques in reducing sex-based disparities after LVAD implantation.