Quality of life and functional status of patients treated with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 6 months

Lessons Learned From Extracorporeal Life Support Practice and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is increasingly being used to support patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock. During the COVID-19 pandemic, consensus guidance recommended extracorporeal life support for patients with COVID-19-related cardiopulmonary disease refractory to optimal conventional therapy, prompting a substantial expansion in the use of this support modality. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was particularly integral to the bridging of COVID-19 patients to heart or lung transplantation. Limited human and physical resources precluded widespread utilization of mechanical support during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating careful patient selection and optimal management by expert healthcare teams for judicious extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use. This review outlines the evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal life support in COVID-19, describes the practice and outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-related respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock, and proposes lessons learned for the implementation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transplantation in future public health emergencies.

Long term outcome in patients treated with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few decades, the use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) support for severe respiratory failure has increased.

AIM

This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of patients treated with VV-ECMO for respiratory failure.

METHODS

We performed a single-centre prospective evaluation of patients on VV-ECMO who were successfully discharged from the intensive care unit of an Italian University Hospital between January 2018 and May 2021. The enrolled patients underwent follow-up evaluations at 6 and 12 months after ICU discharge. The follow-up team performed psychological and functional assessments using the following instruments: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Severity Scale (PTSS-10), Euro Quality Five Domains Five Levels (EQ-5L-5D), and 6-minute walk test.

RESULTS

We enrolled 33 patients who were evaluated at a follow-up clinic. The median patient age was 51 years (range: 45-58 years). The median duration of VV-ECMO support was 12 (9-19) days and the length of ICU stay was 23 (18-42) days. A HADS score higher than 14 was reported in 8 (24 %) and 7 (21 %) patients at the six- and twelve-month visit, respectively. PTSS-10 total score ≥ 35 points was present in three (9 %) and two (6 %) patients at the six- and twelve-month examination. The median EQ-5L-5D-VAS was respectively 80 (80-90) and 87.5 (70-95). The PTSS-10 score significantly decreased from six to 12 months in COVID-19 survivors (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients treated with VV-ECMO, cognitive and psychological outcomes were good and comparable to those of patients with Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) managed without ECMO.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings of this study confirm the need for long-term follow-up and rehabilitation programs for every ICU survivor after discharge. COVID-19 survivors treated with VV-ECMO had outcomes comparable to those reported in non-COVID patients.

Long-term outcomes of patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly used to support patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The impact of ECMO on long-term outcomes of patients with severe ARDS is unclear.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases from inception to January 17th 2023. We selected clinical trials and observational studies reporting on long-term outcomes of patients supported with ECMO for ARDS. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included cognitive function, mental health, functional status, respiratory symptoms, and return to work.

RESULTS

Of the 7126 screened citations, 1 randomized clinical trial and 31 observational studies were included, of which 7 compared conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) and ECMO. Overall quality of studies of the included studies was limited, with the majority being either low (45%) or fair (32%) quality. There was no significant difference in HRQoL measured with the SF-36 score between ECMO and CMV patients (physical component score [PCS]: mean difference 3.91 (- 6.22 to 14.05), mental component score [MCS] mean difference 1.33 (- 3.93 to 6.60)). There was no difference between cognitive function, mental health, functional status, and respiratory symptoms between ECMO and CMV, but data available for comparison were limited. There were high rates of disability for ECMO survivors with 49% of patients returning to work and 23% needing assistance at home on follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Survivors of ECMO for ARDS experience significant disability in multiple domains. Further studies are needed to examine the effect of ECMO on long-term outcomes of patients compared to CMV.

Return-to-Work Prevalence Among COVID-19 Patients After Receiving Intensive Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Returning to work can be a serious issue for patients who have undergone intensive care. Previous studies have reported a relatively low return-to-work prevalence among such patients. Some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience severe pneumonia and require intensive care, including mechanical ventilation. However, little is known about the return-to-work prevalence among such patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature describing the return-to-work prevalence among COVID-19 patients who received intensive care. The eligibility criteria were determined based on the medical condition, context, and population framework of each study, as follows: (1) full-text observational studies, (2) context: COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU, (3) condition: return-to-work prevalence after ICU discharge, and (4) population: critically ill patients who are 18 years and older. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Review articles, case reports, letters to the editor, and comments without data involving return-to-work prevalence were excluded. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE, via PubMed), the Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, via EBSCOhost), and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) databases from their inception till July 26, 2022, and updated the search on June 14, 2023. Specifically, we collected studies reporting data on the return-to-work prevalence among COVID-19 patients after receiving intensive care. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Pre-developed standard forms were used for data collection, and pooled prevalence for return-to-work was calculated. Out of the 2221 available records, 42 full texts were reviewed, 20 of which were included in the qualitative synthesis. The number of return-to-work cases reported at 0-3 months, 4-6 months, and 7-12 months were three, 11, and nine, respectively. At 0-3 months, the pooled prevalence was 0.49 (three trials; n = 73; 95% CI: 0.15-0.84; I2 = 82%). At 4-6 months, the pooled prevalence was 0.57 (11 trials; n = 900; 95% CI: 0.40-0.73; I2 = 92%). Finally, at 7-12 months, the pooled prevalence was 0.64 (nine trials; n = 281; 95% CI: 0.50-0.77; I2 = 80%). However, the overall quality of the included studies was low. Based on the results, approximately one-third of COVID-19 patients did not return to work 12 months after receiving intensive care. Given the quality and limitations of the studies, a more detailed and extensive cohort study is required; also, concerned authorities should implement adequate measures in terms of providing integrated job support for this patient population.

Evaluation of the discrimination and calibration of predictive scores of mortality in ECMO for patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The criteria for the selection of COVID-19 patients that could benefit most from ECMO organ support are yet to be defined. In this study, we evaluated the predictive performance of ECMO mortality predictive models in patients with COVID-19. We also performed a cost-benefit analysis depending on the mortality predicted probability. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in COVID-19 patients who received ECMO at two tertiary care hospitals between March 2020 to July 2021.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (Cox calibration), and accuracy of the prediction of death due to severe ARDS in V-V ECMO score (PRESERVE), the Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Score (RESP) score, and the PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy-Score (PRESET) score. In addition, we compared the RESP score with Plateau pressure instead of Peak pressure.

RESULTS

We included a total of 36 patients, 29 (80%) of them male and with a median (IQR) APACHE of 10 (8-15). The PRESET score had the highest discrimination (AUROCs 0.81 [95%CI 0.67-0.94]) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large 0.5 [95%CI -1.4 to 0.3]; calibration slope 2.2 [95%CI 0.7/3.7]). The RESP score with Plateau pressure had higher discrimination than the conventional RESP score. The cost per QALY in the USA, adjusted to life expectancy, was higher than USD 100 000 in patients older than 45 years with a PRESET > 10.

CONCLUSION

The PRESET score had the highest predictive performance and could help in the selection of patients that benefit most from this resource-demanding and highly invasive organ support.

Variables associated with in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes after postcardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Netherlands Heart Registration Cohort

OBJECTIVES

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock has been increasingly used without concomitant mortality reduction. This study aims to investigate determinants of in-hospital and postdischarge mortality in patients requiring postcardiotomy ECMO in the Netherlands.

METHODS

The Netherlands Heart Registration collects nationwide prospective data from cardiac surgery units. Adults receiving intraoperative or postoperative ECMO included in the register from January 2013 to December 2019 were studied. Survival status was established through the national Personal Records Database. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to investigate determinants of in-hospital (3 models) and 12-month postdischarge mortality (4 models). Each model was developed to target specific time points during a patient's clinical course.

RESULTS

Overall, 406 patients (67.2% men, median age, 66.0 years [interquartile range, 55.0-72.0 years]) were included. In-hospital mortality was 51.7%, with death occurring in a median of 5 days (interquartile range, 2-14 days) after surgery. Hospital survivors (n = 196) experienced considerable rates of pulmonary infections, respiratory failure, arrhythmias, and deep sternal wound infections during a hospitalization of median 29 days (interquartile range, 17-51 days). Older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% CI, 1.0-1.04) and preoperative higher body mass index (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14) were associated with in-hospital death. Within 12 months after discharge, 35.1% of hospital survivors (n = 63) died. Postoperative renal failure (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.6-4.9), respiratory failure (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.3-9.9), and re-thoracotomy (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.3-6.5) were associated with 12-month postdischarge mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital and postdischarge mortality after postcardiotomy ECMO in adults remains high in the Netherlands. ECMO support in patients with higher age and body mass index, which drive associations with higher in-hospital mortality, should be carefully considered. Further observations suggest that prevention of re-thoracotomies, renal failure, and respiratory failure are targets that may improve postdischarge outcomes.

In-hospital and 6-month outcomes in patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (EuroECMO-COVID): a multicentre, prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been widely used in patients with COVID-19, but uncertainty remains about the determinants of in-hospital mortality and data on post-discharge outcomes are scarce. The aims of this study were to investigate the variables associated with in-hospital outcomes in patients who received ECMO during the first wave of COVID-19 and to describe the status of patients 6 months after ECMO initiation.

METHODS

EuroECMO-COVID is a prospective, multicentre, observational study developed by the European Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. This study was based on data from patients aged 16 years or older who received ECMO support for refractory COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic-from March 1 to Sept 13, 2020-at 133 centres in 21 countries. In-hospital mortality and mortality 6 months after ECMO initiation were the primary outcomes. Mixed-Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate associations between patient and management-related variables (eg, patient demographics, comorbidities, pre-ECMO status, and ECMO characteristics and complications) and in-hospital deaths. Survival status at 6 months was established through patient contact or institutional charts review. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04366921, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between March 1 and Sept 13, 2020, 1215 patients (942 [78%] men and 267 [22%] women; median age 53 years [IQR 46-60]) were included in the study. Median ECMO duration was 15 days (IQR 8-27). 602 (50%) of 1215 patients died in hospital, and 852 (74%) patients had at least one complication. Multiorgan failure was the leading cause of death (192 [36%] of 528 patients who died with available data). In mixed-Cox analyses, age of 60 years or older, use of inotropes and vasopressors before ECMO initiation, chronic renal failure, and time from intubation to ECMO initiation of 4 days or more were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. 613 patients did not die in hospital, and 547 (95%) of 577 patients for whom data were available were alive at 6 months. 102 (24%) of 431 patients had returned to full-time work at 6 months, and 57 (13%) of 428 patients had returned to part-time work. At 6 months, respiratory rehabilitation was required in 88 (17%) of 522 patients with available data, and the most common residual symptoms included dyspnoea (185 [35%] of 523 patients) and cardiac (52 [10%] of 514 patients) or neurocognitive (66 [13%] of 512 patients) symptoms.

INTERPRETATION

Patient's age, timing of cannulation (<4 days vs ≥4 days from intubation), and use of inotropes and vasopressors are essential factors to consider when analysing the outcomes of patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19. Despite post-discharge survival being favourable, persisting long-term symptoms suggest that dedicated post-ECMO follow-up programmes are required.

FUNDING

None.