Multi-institutional Analysis of 200 COVID-19 Patients treated with ECMO:Outcomes and Trends

Relationship between the Pre-ECMO and ECMO Time and Survival of Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the etiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used to support gas exchange in patients who have failed conventional mechanical ventilation. However, there is no clear consensus on the timing of ECMO use in severe COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the differences in pre-ECMO time and ECMO duration between COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors and to explore the association between them.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and other sources were searched until 21 October 2022. Studies reporting the relationship between ECMO-related time and COVID-19 survival were included. All available data were pooled using random-effects methods. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the correlation between pre-ECMO time and ECMO duration. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42023403236.

RESULTS

Out of the initial 2473 citations, we analyzed 318 full-text articles, and 54 studies were included, involving 13,691 patients. There were significant differences between survivors and non-survivors in the time from COVID-19 diagnosis (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): [-0.53, -0.29], p < 0.00001), hospital (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI: [-0.97, -0.09], p = 0.02) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (SMD = -0.28, 95% CI: [-0.49, -0.08], p = 0.007), intubation or mechanical ventilation to ECMO (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI: [-0.32, -0.09], p = 0.0003) and ECMO duration (SMD = -0.18, 95% CI: [-0.30, -0.06], p = 0.003). There was no statistical association between a longer time from symptom onset to ECMO (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, 95% CI: [0.99, 1.12], p = 0.11) or time from intubation or mechanical ventilation (MV) and the risk of mortality (highest vs. lowest time groups odds ratio (OR) = 1.18, 95% CI: [0.78, 1.78], p = 0.42; per one-day increase OR = 1.14, 95% CI: [0.86, 1.52], p = 0.36; HR = 0.99, 95% CI: [0.95, 1.02], p = 0.39). There was no linear relationship between pre-ECMO time and ECMO duration.

CONCLUSION

There are differences in pre-ECMO time between COVID-19 survivors and non-survivors, and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that longer pre-ECMO time is responsible for reduced survival in COVID-19 patients. ECMO duration differed between survivors and non-survivors, and the timing of pre-ECMO does not have an impact on ECMO duration. Further studies are needed to explore the association between pre-ECMO and ECMO time in the survival of COVID-19 patients.

Louis JD, Jain A, Bailey C, Jacobs JP, Weinstein S. Variation in outcomes with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the era of coronavirus: A multicenter cohort evaluation

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with acute respiratory distress syndrome unresponsive to other interventions. However, a COVID-19 infection may result in a differential tolerance to both medical treatment and ECMO management. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes (mortality, organ failure, circuit complications) in patients on ECMO with and without COVID-19 infection, either by venovenous (VV) or venoarterial (VA) cannulation. This is a multicenter, retrospective analysis of a national database of patients placed on ECMO between May 2020 and January 2022 within the United States. Nine-hundred thirty patients were classified as either Pulmonary (PULM, n = 206), Cardiac (CARD, n = 279) or COVID-19 (COVID, n = 445). Patients were younger in COVID groups: PULM = 48.4 ± 15.8 years versus COVID = 44.9 ± 12.3 years, p = 0.006, and CARD = 57.9 ± 15.4 versus COVID = 46.5 ± 11.8 years, p < 0.001. Total hours on ECMO were greatest for COVID patients with a median support time two-times higher for VV support (365 [101, 657] hours vs 183 [63, 361], p < 0.001), and three times longer for VA support (212 [99, 566] hours vs 70 [17, 159], p < 0.001). Mortality was highest for COVID patients for both cannulation types (VA-70% vs 51% in CARD, p = 0.041, and VV-59% vs PULM-42%, p < 0.001). For VA supported patients hepatic failure was more often seen with COVID patients, while for VV support renal failure was higher. Circuit complications were more frequent in the COVID group as compared to both CARD and PULM with significantly higher circuit change-outs, circuit thromboses and oxygenator failures. Anticoagulation with direct thrombin inhibitors was used more often in COVID compared to both CARD (31% vs 10%, p = 0.002) and PULM (43% vs 15%, p < 0.001) groups. This multicenter observational study has shown that COVID patients on ECMO had higher support times, greater hospital mortality and higher circuit complications, when compared to patients managed for either cardiac or pulmonary lesions.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although the application of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is accumulating, the feasibility and safety of this therapy remain controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effect of VV-ECMO in the treatment of these patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases through November 2021. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the included studies were screened, and meta-analysis was performed by R software (version 4.0.2).

RESULTS

Forty-two studies including 2037 COVID-19 patients supported with VV-ECMO due to ARDS were identified. The pooled analysis revealed that 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality among patients were respectively 46% (95% CI 37%-57%, I2 = 66%), 46% (95% CI 30%-70%, I2 = 93%), and 49% (95% CI 43%-58%, I2 = 52%), and the pooled incidence rate of in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, and renal replacement therapy were respectively 35%, 39%, 11%, 40%, 15%, 21%, and 44%.

CONCLUSION

Although COVID-19 patients may have a higher risk of bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, and acute kidney injury during ECMO therapy, the survival rate was more than half of the cases. Our data may support the application of VV-ECMO in COVID-19 patients.

Investigational medications in 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: lessons from the "fail-and-learn" strategy during the first two waves of the pandemic in 2020

BACKGROUND

The early surge of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic introduced a significant clinical challenge due to the high case-fatality rate in absence of evidence-based recommendations. The empirical treatment modalities were relegated to historical expertise from the traditional management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in conjunction with off-label pharmaceutical agents endorsed under the "emergency use authorization" (EUA) paradigm by regulatory agencies. This study was designed to evaluate the insights from the "fail-and-learn" strategy in 2020 before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and access to reliable insights from high-quality randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched, case-control study was performed on a data registry comprising 186 hospitals from a national health care system in the United States, designed to investigate the efficacy of empirical treatment modalities during the early surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Reflective of the time-windows of the initial two surges of the pandemic in 2020, patients were stratified into "Early 2020" (March 1-June 30) versus "Late 2020" (July 1-December 31) study cohorts. Logistic regression was applied to determine the efficacy of prevalent medications (remdesivir, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, tocilizumab) and supplemental oxygen delivery modalities (invasive vs. non-invasive ventilation) on patient outcomes. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Group comparisons were adjusted for covariates related to age, gender, ethnicity, body weight, comorbidities, and treatment modalities pertinent to organ failure replacement.

RESULTS

From a total of 87,788 patients in the multicenter data registry screened in this study, 9,638 patients were included who received 19,763 COVID-19 medications during the first two waves of the 2020 pandemic. The results showed a minimal, yet statistically significant, association with hydroxychloroquine in "Early 2020" and remdesivir in "Late 2020" with reduced odds of mortality (odds ratios 0.72 and 0.76, respectively; P = 0.01). Azithromycin was the only medication associated with decreased odds of mortality during both study time-windows (odds ratios 0.79 and 0.68, respectively; P < 0.01). In contrast, the necessity for oxygen supply showed significantly increased odds of mortality beyond the effect of all investigated medications. Of all the covariates associated with increased mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation had the highest odds ratios of 8.34 in the first surge and 9.46 in in the second surge of the pandemic (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective multicenter observational cohort study on 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 during revealed that the necessity for invasive ventilation had the highest odds of mortality, beyond the variable effects observed by administration of the prevalent EUA-approved investigational drugs during the first two surges of the early 2020 pandemic in the United States.

Outcomes of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19 Patients: A Multi-Institutional Analysis

BACKGROUND

In March 2020, COVID-19 was announced as a global pandemic. The first COVID-19 patient was connected to an ECMO device in Israel during that time. Since then, over 200 patients have required ECMO support due to COVID-19 infection. The present study is a multi-institutional analysis of all COVID-19 patients requiring veno-venous (VV) ECMO in Israel. The aim was to characterize and compare the survivors and deceased patients as well as establish risk factors for mortality.

METHODS

This retrospective multi-institutional study was conducted from March 2020 to March 2021 in eleven of twelve ECMO centers operating in Israel. All COVID-19 patients on VV ECMO support were included in the cohort. The patients were analyzed based on their comorbidities, procedural data, adverse event on ECMO, and outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare the deceased and the surviving patients.

RESULTS

The study included 197 patients, of which 150 (76%) were males, and the mean age was 50.7 ± 12 years. Overall mortality was 106 (54%). Compared with the deceased subjects, survivors were significantly younger (48 ± 11 vs. 53 ± 12 years), suffered less from ischemic heart disease (IHD) (3% vs. 12%), and were ventilated for a significantly shorter period (≤4 days) prior to cannulation (77% vs. 63%). Patients in the deceased group experienced more kidney failure and sepsis. Rates of other complications were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study, we conclude that early cannulation (≤4 days) of younger patients (≤55 years) may improve overall survival and that a history of IHD might indicate a reduced prognosis.

Multi-institutional Analysis of 505 Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019 Supported With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Predictors of Survival

BACKGROUND

We reviewed our experience with 505 patients with confirmed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at 45 hospitals and estimated risk factors for mortality.

METHODS

A multi-institutional database was created and used to assess all patients with COVID-19 who were supported with ECMO. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression model was estimated to assess the effect on survival of multiple potential risk factors for mortality, including age at cannulation for ECMO as well as days between diagnosis of COVID-19 and intubation and days between intubation and cannulation for ECMO.

RESULTS

Median time on ECMO was 18 days (interquartile range, 10-29 days). All 505 patients separated from ECMO: 194 patients (38.4%) survived and 311 patients (61.6%) died. Survival with venovenous ECMO was 184 of 466 patients (39.5%), and survival with venoarterial ECMO was 8 of 30 patients (26.7%). Survivors had lower median age (44 vs 51 years, P < .001) and shorter median time interval from diagnosis to intubation (7 vs 11 days, P = .001). Adjusting for several confounding factors, we estimated that an ECMO patient intubated on day 14 after the diagnosis of COVID-19 vs day 4 had a relative odds of survival of 0.65 (95% credible interval, 0.44-0.96; posterior probability of negative effect, 98.5%). Age was also negatively associated with survival: relative to a 38-year-old patient, we estimated that a 57-year-old patient had a relative odds of survival of 0.43 (95% credible interval, 0.30-0.61; posterior probability of negative effect, >99.99%).

CONCLUSIONS

ECMO facilitates salvage and survival of select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Survivors tend to be younger and have shorter time from diagnosis to intubation. Survival of patients supported with only venovenous ECMO was 39.5%.

Evolving outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used extensively for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Reports early in the pandemic suggested that mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO was comparable to non-COVID-19-related ARDS. However, subsequent reports suggested that mortality appeared to be increasing over time. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, to characterise changes in mortality over time and elucidate risk factors for poor outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis (CRD42021271202), searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases, from 1 December 2019 to 26 January 2022, for studies reporting on mortality among adults with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. We also captured hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and ECMO, as well as complications of ECMO. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and evaluated certainty of pooled estimates using GRADE methodology.

Results

Of 4522 citations, we included 52 studies comprising 18,211 patients in the meta-analysis. The pooled mortality rate among patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO was 48.8% (95% confidence interval 44.8–52.9%, high certainty). Mortality was higher among studies which enrolled patients later in the pandemic as opposed to earlier (1st half 2020: 41.2%, 2nd half 2020: 46.4%, 1st half 2021: 62.0%, 2nd half 2021: 46.5%, interaction p value = 0.0014). Predictors of increased mortality included age, the time of final patient enrolment from 1 January 2020, and the proportion of patients receiving corticosteroids, and reduced duration of ECMO run.

Conclusions

The mortality rate for patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS has increased as the pandemic has progressed. The reasons for this are likely multifactorial; however, as outcomes for these patients evolve, the decision to initiate ECMO should include the best contextual estimate of mortality at the time of ECMO initiation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04011-2.

Louis JD, Tesdahl EA, Hayanga JA, Morris RJ, Lee RC, Sestokas AK, Badhwar V, Weinstein S. Variation in Survival in Patients with COVID-19 Supported with ECMO: A Multi-institutional analysis of 594 consecutive COVID-19 patients supported with ECMO at 49 hospitals within 21 States

Objectives

We reviewed 594 consecutive patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 49 hospitals within 21 states and examined patient characteristics, treatments, and variation in outcomes over the course of the pandemic.

Methods

A multi-institutional database was used to assess all patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 cannulated for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation between March 17, 2020, and December 20, 2021, inclusive, and separated from ECMO on or prior to January 14, 2022. Descriptive analysis was stratified by 4 time categories: group A = March 2020 to June 2020, group B = July 2020 to December 2020, group C = January 2021 to June 2021, group D = July 2021 to December 2021. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression was used to assess continuous trends in survival where time was operationalized as the number of days between each patient's cannulation and that of the first patient in March 2020, controlling for multiple variables and risk factors.

Results

At hospital discharge, of 594 patients, 221 survived (37.2%) and 373 died. Throughout the study, median age [interquartile range] declined (group A = 51.0 [41.0-60.0] years, group D = 39.0 [32.0-48.0] years, P < .001); median days between Coronavirus Disease 2019 diagnosis and intubation increased (group A = 4.0 [1.0-8.5], group D = 9.0 [5.0-14.5], P < .001); and use of medications (glucocorticoids, interleukin-6 blockers, antivirals, antimalarials) and convalescent plasma fluctuated significantly (all P < .05). Estimated odds of survival varied over the study period with a decline between April 1, 2020, and November 21, 2020 (odds ratio, 0.39, 95% credible interval, 0.18-0.87, probability of reduction in survival = 95.7%), improvement between November 21, 2020, and May 17, 2021 (odds ratio, 1.85, 95% credible interval, 0.86-4.09, probability of improvement = 93.4%), and decline between May 17, 2021, and December 1, 2021 (odds ratio, 0.49, 95% credible interval, 0.19-1.44, probability of decrease = 92.1%).

Conclusions

Survival for patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has fluctuated during the stages of the pandemic. Minimizing variability by adherence to best practices may refine the optimal use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a pandemic response.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review of literature

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.

Impact of asthma on COVID-19 mortality in the United States: Evidence based on a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of asthma on the risk for mortality among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the United States by a quantitative meta-analysis.

METHODS

A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). I² statistic, sensitivity analysis, Begg's test, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

The data based on 56 studies with 426,261 COVID-19 patients showed that there was a statistically significant association between pre-existing asthma and the reduced risk for COVID-19 mortality in the United States (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.91). Subgroup analyses by age, male proportion, sample size, study design and setting demonstrated that pre-existing asthma was associated with a significantly reduced risk for COVID-19 mortality among studies with age ≥ 60 years old (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.87), male proportion ≥ 55% (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.87), male proportion ＜ 55% (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.69-0.95), sample sizes ≥ 700 cases (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.71-0.91), retrospective study/case series (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75-0.89), prospective study (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.98) and hospitalized patients (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.91). Meta-regression did reveal none of factors mentioned above were possible reasons of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis indicated the robustness of our findings. No publication bias was detected in Begg's test (P = 0.4538).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated pre-existing asthma was significantly associated with a reduced risk for COVID-19 mortality in the United States.