Impact of COVID-19-associated Dysautonomia Phenotypes on the Effectiveness of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

   RELEVANCE. It is known that patients with severe cases of the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) are characterized by the development of COVID-19-associated dysautonomia (COVID-19-DA). At the moment, there are no studies examining the impact of this phenomenon on the course and outcomes of the disease in the most severe cohort of patients with COVID-19, namely those requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO).

  AIM OF STUDY. The purpose of the presented work is to study the effect of different COVID-19-DA phenotypes on the performance parameters and effectiveness of VV ECMO, gas exchange and hemodynamics in patients with COVID-19.

   MATERIAL AND METHODS. The study included 20 patients, 12 (60%) women, 8 (40%) men, with COVID-19 who underwent VV ECMO. Patients underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring with assessment of the spectral parameters of heart rate variability (HRV): the low-frequency component (LF), the high-frequency component (HF), the ratio of the low-frequency component to the high frequency component (LF / HF) on days 1, 3, 5 of the VV ECMO. Patients were divided into three groups based on the identified COVID-19-DA phenotypes. The groups were compared in terms of gas exchange, hemodynamics, and VV ECMO performance parameters.

   RESULTS. The level of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (paCO₂) in the phenotype with low sympathetic tone and high tone of the parasympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) (lShP) was significantly higher than in the phenotype with normal sympathetic tone and high tone of the parasympathetic division of the ANS (nShP) with equal VV ECMO performance parameters. The heart rate (HR) in the nShP phenotype was significantly lower than in the lShP phenotype. A significant increase in respiratory dysfunction was revealed over time in the lShP phenotype. Weaning from VV ECMO in the nShP phenotype was successful in 50 %, whereas in the lShP phenotype, weaning from VV ECMO was observed in 7,2 % of patients. No significant differences in the mortality rate were obtained. The most common cause of death in both groups was septic shock.

   CONCLUSIONS. The COVID-19-DA phenotype, manifested by decreased tone of the sympathetic division and increased tone of the parasympathetic division of the ANS, leads to low efficiency of VV ECMO, resulting in a statistically significantly less frequent ECMO discontinuation in those patients.

1. Ñamendys-Silva SA. ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19. Heart Lung. 2020;49(4):348–349. PMID: 32223988. doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.03.012

2. Tonna JE, Abrams D, Brodie D, Greenwood JC, Rubio Mateo-Sidron JA, Usman A, et al. Management of Adult Patients Supported with Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV ECMO): Guideline from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). ASAIO J. 2021;67(6):601–610. PMID: 33965970. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001432

3. Lynch JP, Mhyre JG, Dantzker DR. Influence of cardiac output on intrapulmonary shunt. J Appl Physiol Respir Environ Exerc Physiol. 1979;46(2):315–321. PMID: 422447. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1979.46.2.315

4. Dantzker DR, Lynch JP, Weg JG. Depression of cardiac output is a mechanism of shunt reduction in the therapy of acute respiratory failure. Chest. 1980;77(5):636–642. PMID: 6988180. doi: 10.1378/chest.77.5.636

5. Hovaguimian A. Dysautonomia: Diagnosis and Management. Neurol Clin. 2023;41(1):193–213. PMID: 36400555. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2022.08.002

6. Ministerstvo zdravookhraneniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Profilaktika, diagnostika i lechenie novoy koronavirusnoy infektsii (COVID-19) : vremennye metodicheskie rekomendatsii. Versiya 16 (18.08.2022). Moscow; 2022. Available at: https://static-0.minzdrav.gov.ru/system/attachments/attaches/000/060/193/original/%D0%92%D0%9C%D0%A0_COVID-19_V16.pdf [Accessed Nov 24, 2023].

7. Shekar K, Badulak J, Peek G, Boeken U, Dalton HJ, Arora L, et al. Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Coronavirus Disease 2019 Interim Guidelines: A Consensus Document from an International Group of Interdisciplinary Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Providers. ASAIO J. 2020;66(7):707–721. PMID: 32604322. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001193

8. McLean AS. Echocardiography in shock management. Crit Care. 2016;20:275. PMID: 27543137. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1401-7

9. Rudiger A, Singer M. Decatecholaminisation during sepsis. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):309. PMID: 27716402. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1488-x

10. Levy MM, Evans LE, Rhodes A. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Bundle: 2018 update. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):925–928. PMID: 29675566. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5085-0

11. Cannon JW. Hemorrhagic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(4):370–379. PMID: 29365303. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1705649

12. Grigoriev EV, Shukevich DL, Kornelyuk RA, Ganyukov VI, Kochergin NA. Cardiogenic shock : an update. Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2019;8(4):127–137. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17802/2306-1278-2019-8-4-127-137

13. Baevskiy RM, Ivanov GG, Chireykin LV, Gavrilushkin AP, Dovgalevskiy PYa, Kukushkin YuA, et al. Analiz variabel’nosti serdechnogo ritma pri ispol’zovanii razlichnykh elektrokardiograficheskikh sistem (chast’ 1). Journal of Arrhythmology. 2002;(24):65-86. (In Russ.)

14. Bigger JT Jr, Fleiss JL, Steinman RC, Rolnitzky LM, Schneider WJ, Stein PK. RR Variability in Healthy, Middle-Aged Persons Compared with Patients with Chronic Coronary Heart Disease or Recent Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 1995;91(7):1936–1943. PMID: 7895350. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.91.7.1936

15. Heart rate variability. Standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Task force of the European society of cardiology and the North American society of pacing and electrophysiology. Eur Heart J. 1996;17(3):354–381. PMID: 8737210

16. Bertini P, Guarracino F, Falcone M, Nardelli P, Landoni G, Nocci M, et al. ECMO in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2022;36(8PtA):2700–2706. PMID: 34906383. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2021.11.006

17. Hogue CW Jr, Talke P, Stein PK, Richardson C, Domitrovich PP, Sessler DI. Autonomic nervous system responses during sedative infusions of dexmedetomidine. Anesthesiology. 2002;97(3):592–598. PMID: 12218525. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200209000-00012

18. Cheng Y, Sun F, D’Souza A, Dhakal B, Pisano M, Chhabra S, et al. Autonomic nervous system control of multiple myeloma. Blood Rev. 2021;46:100741. PMID: 32807576. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2020.100741

19. Tonna JE, Abrams D, Brodie D, Greenwood JC, Rubio Mateo-Sidron JA, Usman A, et al. Management of Adult Patients Supported with Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV ECMO): Guideline from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). ASAIO J. 2021;67(6):601–610. PMID: 33965970. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001432

20. Chen WL, Chen JH, Huang CC, Kuo CD, Huang CI, Lee LS. Heart rate variability measures as predictors of in-hospital mortality in ED patients with sepsis. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(4):395–401. PMID: 18410805. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.06.016

21. Chen WL, Shen YS, Huang CC, Chen JH, Kuo CD. Postresuscitation autonomic nervous modulation after cardiac arrest resembles that of severe sepsis. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(1):143–150. PMID: 21208768. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2010.11.013