Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in Trauma Versus Nontrauma Patients with Noninfectious Acute Respiratory Failure

ECMO in trauma care: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Over the past 10 years, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in trauma patients has increased significantly. This includes adult and pediatric trauma patients and even combat casualties. Most ECMO applications are in a venovenous (VV ECMO) configuration for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or anatomic injuries that require pneumonectomy or extreme lung rest in a patient with insufficient respiratory reserve. In this narrative review, we summarize the most common indications for VV ECMO and other forms of ECMO support used in critically injured patients, underscore the importance of early ECMO consultation or regional referral, review the technical aspects of ECMO cannulation and management, and examine the expected outcomes for these patients. In addition, we evaluate the data where it exists to try to debunk some common myths surrounding ECMO management.

ECMO in adult patients with severe trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe trauma can result in cardiorespiratory failure, and when conventional treatment is ineffective, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can serve as an adjunctive therapy. However, the indications for ECMO in trauma cases are uncertain and clinical outcomes are variable. This study sought to describe the prognosis of adult trauma patients requiring ECMO, aiming to inform clinical decision-making and future research.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases until March 13, 2023, encompassing relevant studies involving over 5 trauma patients (aged ≥ 16 years) requiring ECMO support. The primary outcome measure was survival until discharge, with secondary measures including length of stay in the ICU and hospital, ECMO duration, and complications during ECMO. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to analyze these outcomes. The study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, while the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised 36 observational studies encompassing 1822 patients. The pooled survival rate was 65.9% (95% CI 61.3-70.5%). Specifically, studies focusing on traumatic brain injury (TBI) (16 studies, 383 patients) reported a survival rate of 66.1% (95% CI 55.4-76.2%), while studies non-TBI (15 studies, 262 patients) reported a survival rate of 68.1% (95% CI 56.9-78.5%). No significant difference was observed between these two survival comparisons (p = 0.623). Notably, studies utilizing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) (15 studies, 39.0%, 95% CI 23.3-55.6%) demonstrated significantly lower survival rates than those using venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) (23 studies, 72.3%, 95% CI 63.2-80.7%, p < 0.001). The graded assessment of evidence provided a high degree of certainty regarding the pooled survival.

CONCLUSIONS

ECMO is now considered beneficial for severely traumatized patients, improving prognosis and serving as a valuable tool in managing trauma-related severe cardiorespiratory failure, haemorrhagic shock, and cardiac arrest.

Influence of immunosuppression in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy

Prognosis of patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is poor. This is especially true for immunosuppressed patients. It is controverisal whether these patients should receive veno‐venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) while evidence on this topic is sparse. We report retrospective data of a single‐center registry of patients with severe ARDS requiring ECMO support between October 2010 and June 2019. Patients were analyzed by their status of immunosuppression. ECMO weaning success and hospital survival were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Moreover, ventilator free days (VFD) were compared. A total of 288 patients were analyzed (age 55 years, 67% male), 88 (31%) presented with immunosuppression. Survival rates were lower in immunosuppressed patients (27% vs. 53%, P < .001 and 27% vs. 48% after PSM, P = .006). VFD (60 days) were lower for patients with immunosuppression (11.9 vs. 22.4, P < .001), and immunosuppression was an independent predictor for mortality in multivariate analysis. Hospital survival was 20%, 14%, 35%, and 46% for patients with oncological malignancies, solid organ transplantation, autoimmune diseases, and HIV, respectively. In this analysis immunosuppression was an independent predictor for mortality. However, there were major differences in the weaning and survival rates between the etiologies of immunosuppression which should be considered in decision making.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Utilization in Blunt and Penetrating Traumatic Injuries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has become an increasingly used treatment modality for severe respiratory insufficiency in trauma patients. Examining ECMO use specifically in blunt and penetrating traumas can aid in directing future protocols. We aim to evaluate the outcomes of ECMO use in both blunt and penetrating trauma patients through a systematic review of current literature.

METHODS

An online search of 2 databases (PubMed and Google Scholar) was performed to analyze studies, which evaluated the use of ECMO in blunt and penetrating traumas. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines were followed. Data extracted included mechanism of injury, injury severity scores (ISSs), complications, and mortality rates.

RESULTS

The search demonstrated 9 studies that met our review inclusion criteria. A total of 207 patients were included, of which 64 (30.9%) were non-survivors and 143 (69.1%) were survivors. There was a total of 201 blunt traumas with 61 (30.3%) deaths, whereas penetrating traumas had 2 deaths (33.3%) out of 6 total patients. Complications reported included acute renal failure, hemorrhage at the cannula site, and transient neurological deficits. Most studies found better survival rates and less complications in younger patients and those with lower ISS.

CONCLUSION

Expanding the use of ECMO to include blunt and penetrating trauma patients provides the trauma surgeons with another crucial potentially lifesaving tool with an overall survival rate of 70%. Anticipating increased future use of ECMO in blunt and penetrating trauma patients, distinct protocols ought to be instilled to better address the care needed for these critically ill trauma patients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in trauma patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has evolved considerably over the past two decades and has been gradually utilized in severe trauma. However, the indications for the use of ECMO in trauma remain uncertain and the clinical outcomes are different. We performed a systematic review to provide an overall estimate of the current performance of ECMO in the treatment of trauma patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and MEDLINE databases up to the end of December 2019 for studies on ECMO in trauma. The PRISMA statement was followed. Data on demographics of the patient, mechanism of injury, injury severity scores (ISS), details of ECMO strategies, and clinical outcome were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 58 articles (19 retrospective reports and 39 case reports) were deemed eligible and included. In total, 548 patients received ECMO treatment for severe trauma (adult 517; children 31; mean age of adults 34.9 ± 12.3 years). Blunt trauma (85.4%) was the primary injury mechanism, and 128 patients had traumatic brain injury (TBI). The mean ISS was 38.1 ± 15.0. A total of 71.3% of patients were initially treated with VV ECMO, and 24.5% were placed on VA ECMO. The median time on ECMO was 9.6 days, and the median time to ECMO was 5.7 days. A total of 60% of patients received initially heparin anticoagulation. Bleeding (22.9%) and thrombosis (19%) were the most common complications. Ischemia of the lower extremities occurred in 9 patients. The overall hospital mortality was 30.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

ECMO has been gradually utilized in a lifesaving capacity in severe trauma patients, and the feasibility and advantages of this technique are becoming widely accepted. The safety and effectiveness of ECMO in trauma require further study. Several problems with ECMO in trauma, including the role of VA-ECMO, the time to institute ECMO, and the anticoagulation strategy remain controversial and must be solved in future studies.

Survival rate and Outcome of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for treatment of acute cardiorespiratory failure in trauma patients

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) remains the last option for cardiorespiratory stabilization of severe traumatic injured patients. Currently limited data are available and therefore, the current study assessed the survival rate and outcome of ECLS in a Level I trauma center. Between 2002 and 2016, 18 patients (7 females, 11 males) with an median age of 29.5 IQR 23.5 (range 1–64) years were treated with ECLS due to acute traumatic cardiorespiratory failure. Trauma mechanism, survival rate, ISS, SOFA, GCS, GOS, CPC, time to ECLS, hospital- and ICU stay, surgical interventions, complications and infections were retrospectively assessed. Veno-arterial ECLS was applied in 15 cases (83.3%) and veno-venous ECLS in 3 cases (16.6%). Survivors were significant younger than non-survivors (p = 0.0289) and had a lower ISS (23.5 (IQR 22.75) vs 38.5 (IQR 16.5), p = n.s.). The median time to ECLS cannulation was 2 (IQR 0,25) hours in survivors 2 (IQR 4) in non-survivors. Average GCS was 3 (IQR 9.25) at admission. Six patients (33.3%) survived and had a satisfying neurological outcome with a mean GOS of 5 (IQR 0.25) (p = n.s.). ECLS is a valuable treatment in severe injured patients with traumatic cardiorespiratory failure and improves survival with good neurological outcome. Younger patients and patients with a lower ISS are associated with a higher survival rate. Consideration of earlier cannulation in traumatic cardiorespiratory failure might be beneficial to improve survival.

Heparin-Sparing Anticoagulation Strategies Are Viable Options for Patients on Veno-Venous ECMO

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), a rescue therapy for pulmonary failure, has traditionally been limited by anticoagulation requirements. Recent practice has challenged the absolute need for anticoagulation, expanding the role of ECMO to patients with higher bleeding risk. We hypothesize that mortality, bleeding, thrombotic events, and transfusions do not differ between heparin-sparing and full therapeutic anticoagulation strategies in veno-venous (VV) ECMO management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult VV ECMO patients between October 2011 and May 2018 at a single center were reviewed. A heparin-sparing strategy was implemented in October 2014; we compared outcomes in an as-treated fashion. The primary end point was survival. Secondary end points included bleeding, thrombotic complications, and transfusion requirements.

RESULTS

Forty VV ECMO patients were included: 17 (147 circuit-days) before and 23 (214 circuit-days) after implementation of a heparin-sparing protocol. Patients treated with heparin-sparing anticoagulation had a lower body mass index (28.5 ± 7.1 versus 38.1 ± 12.4, P = 0.01), more often required inotropic support before ECMO (82 versus 50%, P = 0.05), and had a lower mean activated clotting time (167 ± 15 versus 189 ± 15 s, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in survival to decannulation (59 versus 83%, P = 0.16) or discharge (50 versus 72%, P = 0.20), bleeding (32 versus 33%, P = 1.0), thromboembolic events (18 versus 39%, P = 0.17), or transfusion requirements (median 1.1 versus 0.9 unit per circuit-day, P = 0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival, bleeding, thrombotic complications, and transfusion requirements did not differ between heparin-sparing and full therapeutic heparin strategies for management of VV ECMO. VV ECMO can be a safe option in patients with traditional contraindications to anticoagulation.

Extra corporeal membrane oxygenation in the critical trauma patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to describe recent evidence regarding the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as salvage therapy for severe cardiac or respiratory failure in patients with trauma. The characteristics of this cohort of patients, including the risk of bleeding and the need for systemic anticoagulation, are generally considered as relative contraindications to ECMO treatment. However, recent evidence suggests that the use of ECMO should be taken in consideration even in this group of patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent findings suggest that venous-venous ECMO can be feasible in the treatment of refractory respiratory failure and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome trauma-related. The improvement of ECMO techniques including the introduction of centrifugal pumps and heparin-coated circuits are progressively reducing the amount of heparin required; moreover, the application of heparin-free ECMO showed good outcomes and minimal complications. Venous-arterial ECMO has emerged as a salvage intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock and after cardiac arrest. Venous-arterial ECMO provides circulatory support allowing time for other treatments to promote recovery in presence of acute cardiopulmonary failure. Only poor-quality evidence is available, for venous-arterial ECMO in trauma patients.

SUMMARY

ECMO can be considered as a safe rescue therapy even in trauma patients, including neurological injury, chest trauma as well as burns. However, evidence is still poor; further studies are warranted focusing on trauma patients undergoing ECMO, to better clarify the effect on survival, the type and dose of anticoagulation to use, as well as the utility of dedicated multidisciplinary trauma-ECMO units.

Artificial Organs 2017: A Year in Review

In this Editor's Review, articles published in 2017 are organized by category and summarized. We provide a brief reflection of the research and progress in artificial organs intended to advance and better human life while providing insight for continued application of these technologies and methods. Artificial Organs continues in the original mission of its founders "to foster communications in the field of artificial organs on an international level." Artificial Organs continues to publish developments and clinical applications of artificial organ technologies in this broad and expanding field of organ Replacement, Recovery, and Regeneration from all over the world. Peer-reviewed Special Issues this year included contributions from the 12th International Conference on Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support Systems and Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Perfusion edited by Dr. Akif Undar, Artificial Oxygen Carriers edited by Drs. Akira Kawaguchi and Jan Simoni, the 24th Congress of the International Society for Mechanical Circulatory Support edited by Dr. Toru Masuzawa, Challenges in the Field of Biomedical Devices: A Multidisciplinary Perspective edited by Dr. Vincenzo Piemonte and colleagues and Functional Electrical Stimulation edited by Dr. Winfried Mayr and colleagues. We take this time also to express our gratitude to our authors for offering their work to this journal. We offer our very special thanks to our reviewers who give so generously of time and expertise to review, critique, and especially provide meaningful suggestions to the author's work whether eventually accepted or rejected. Without these excellent and dedicated reviewers the quality expected from such a journal could not be possible. We also express our special thanks to our Publisher, John Wiley & Sons for their expert attention and support in the production and marketing of Artificial Organs. We look forward to reporting further advances in the coming years.