An External Validation of Scoring Systems in Mortality Prediction in Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

External Validation of the PREdiction of Survival on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy (PRESET) Score: A Single Center Cohort Experience

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition affecting >10% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients worldwide with a mortality of up to 59% depending on severity. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a potentially life-saving procedure in severe ARDS but is technically and financially challenging. In recent years, various scoring systems have been proposed to select patients most likely to benefit from ECMO, with the PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy (PRESET) score being one of the most used. We collected data from 283 patients with ARDS of various etiology who underwent veno-venous (V-V) ECMO therapy at a German tertiary care ICU from January 2012 to December 2022. Median age in the cohort was 56 years, and 64.31% were males. The in-hospital mortality rate was 50.88% (n = 144). The median (25%; 75% quartile) severity scores were 38 (31; 49) for Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, 12 (10; 13) for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and 7 (5; 8) for PRESET. Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II displayed the best prognostic value (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC]: 0.665 [confidence interval (CI): 0.574-0.756; p = 0.046]). Prediction performance was weak in all analyzed scores despite good calibration. Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II had the best discrimination after adjustment of our original cohort. The use of scores explored in this study for patient selection for eligibility for V-V ECMO is not recommendable.

Validation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation mortality prediction and severity of illness scores in an international COVID-19 cohort

BACKGROUND

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) is a lifesaving support modality for severe respiratory failure, but its resource-intensive nature led to significant controversy surrounding its use during the COVID-19 pandemic. We report the performance of several ECMO mortality prediction and severity of illness scores at discriminating survival in a large COVID-19 V-V ECMO cohort.

METHODS

We validated ECMOnet, PRESET (PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy-Score), Roch, SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), APACHE II (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation), 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium), and CURB-65 (Confusion, Urea nitrogen, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure, age >65 years) scores on the ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium) database. We report discrimination via Area Under the Receiver Operative Curve (AUROC) and Area under the Precision Recall Curve (AURPC) and calibration via Brier score.

RESULTS

We included 1147 patients and scores were calculated on patients with sufficient variables. ECMO mortality scores had AUROC (0.58-0.62), AUPRC (0.62-0.74), and Brier score (0.286-0.303). Roch score had the highest accuracy (AUROC 0.62), precision (AUPRC 0.74) yet worst calibration (Brier score of 0.3) despite being calculated on the fewest patients (144). Severity of illness scores had AUROC (0.52-0.57), AURPC (0.59-0.64), and Brier Score (0.265-0.471). APACHE II had the highest accuracy (AUROC 0.58), precision (AUPRC 0.64), and best calibration (Brier score 0.26).

CONCLUSION

Within a large international multicenter COVID-19 cohort, the evaluated ECMO mortality prediction and severity of illness scores demonstrated inconsistent discrimination and calibration highlighting the need for better clinically applicable decision support tools.

Days spent on non-invasive ventilation support: can it determine when to initiate VV- ECMO? Observational study in a cohort of Covid-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The study evaluates the impact of the time between commencing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) support and initiation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in a cohort of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

Prospective observational study design in an intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a tertiary hospital in Barcelona (Spain). All patients requiring VV-ECMO support due to COVID-19 associated ARDS between March 2020 and January 2022 were analysed. Survival outcome was determined at 90 days after VV-ECMO initiation. Demographic data, comorbidities at ICU admission, RESP (respiratory ECMO survival prediction) score, antiviral and immunomodulatory treatments received, inflammatory biomarkers, the need for vasopressors, the thromboprophylaxis regimen received, and respiratory parameters including the length of intubation previous to ECMO and the length of each NIV support (high-flow nasal cannula, continuous positive airway pressure and bi-level positive airway pressure), were also collated in order to assess risk factors for day-90 mortality. The effect of the time lapse between NIV support and VV-ECMO on survival was evaluated using logistic regression and adjusting the association with all factors that were significant in the univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients finally received VV-ECMO support. At 90 days after commencing VV-ECMO 35 patients (48%) had died and 37 patients (52%) were alive. Multivariable analysis showed that at VV-ECMO initiation, age (p = 0.02), lactate (p = 0.001), and days from initiation of NIV support to starting VV-ECMO (p = 0.04) were all associated with day-90 mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In our small cohort of VV-ECMO patients with COVID-19 associated ARDS, the time spent between initiation of NIV support and VV-ECMO (together with age and lactate) appeared to be a better predictor of mortality than the time between intubation and VV-ECMO.

Extracorporeal Support Prognostication-Time to Move the Goal Posts?

Advances in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) technology are associated with expanded indications, increased utilization and improved outcome. There is growing interest in developing ECMO prognostication scores to aid in bedside decision making. To date, the majority of available scores have been limited to mostly registry-based data and with mortality as the main outcome of interest. There continues to be a gap in clinically applicable decision support tools to aid in the timing of ECMO cannulation to improve patients' long-term outcomes. We present a brief review of the commonly available adult and pediatric ECMO prognostication tools, their limitations, and future directions.