Outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in influenza versus COVID-19 during the first wave of COVID-19

Comparison of Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Intensive Care Units Between Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Patients with Influenza: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or influenza virus can cause patients to be admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). It is necessary to understand the differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between these two types of critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for articles and performed a meta-analysis using Stata 14.0 with a random-effects model. This paper was written in strict accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-five articles involving 131,692 ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 30,286 ICU patients with influenza were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with influenza patients, COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male (odds ratio (OR) = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.54-1.99) and older (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.29). In terms of laboratory test results, COVID-19 patients had higher lymphocyte (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17-0.59) and platelet counts (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.29-0.75) but lower creatinine (SMD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.55-0.03) and procalcitonin levels (SMD = -0.78, 95% CI: -1.11-0.46). Diabetes (SMD = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.08-1.48) and hypertension (SMD = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.05-1.60) were more prevalent in COVID-19 patients, while influenza patients were more likely to have cancer (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.62), cirrhosis (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.62), immunodepression (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25-0.58), and chronic pulmonary diseases (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24-0.52). We also found that patients with COVID-19 had longer ICU stays (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.34), were more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR = 4.90, 95% CI: 2.77-8.64), and had higher mortality (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17-1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

There are some differences in the basic characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory test results and complications between ICU patients with COVID-19 and ICU patients with influenza. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 often require more medical resources and have worse clinical outcomes. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42023452238.

Outcomes associated with prolonged ECMO in COVID-19 associated ARDS: A single center experience

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant increase in the use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) as a bridge to transplantation versus recovery. Unlike other etiologies of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), utilization of V-V ECMO in COVID-19 has been associated with longer duration of ECMO support requirements. Our team sought to evaluate outcomes associated with prolonged duration of ECMO support in this patient population.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective review of patients who were placed on ECMO due to COVID-19 associated ARDS. Specifically examining outcomes-transplant free survival, mortality and discharge rates-of patients requiring V-V ECMO support for greater than 50 days.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 48 years and 13 patients (72%) were males. The median duration of ECMO support was 84 days (IQR 55-106). 11 patients (61%) had right ventricular dysfunction and 13 patients (72%) had pneumothoraces. There was a 33% percent (n = 6) mortality rate within cohort. One patient continues to require ECMO support at time of abstract submission. 11 patients (61%) patients were discharged, of which 3 patients required a lung transplant.

SUMMARY

Prolonged V-V ECMO can be associated with comparable outcomes to conventional V-V ECMO runs that are relatively shorter in duration. With availability of device and staffing, prolonged ECMO runs can potentially be justified in a highly selected patient population.

Outcome of Patients on Prolonged V-V ECMO at a Tertiary Care Center in India

Introduction

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-support system that provides cardiopulmonary support. With recent advances, the duration of ECMO has increased but data on the outcomes of prolonged V-V ECMO are limited and inconsistent.

Materials and methods

It is a retrospective observational study done at a tertiary care center in Kolkata to study the outcome of patients receiving prolonged V-V ECMO defined as >14 days.

Observation

A total of 22 patients received prolonged ECMO support. Fifteen patients (68.2%) had severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The mean duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) before ECMO was 5 days. Baseline PaO2/FiO2 (p/f) ratio was 82 and Murray score was 3.5. The mean duration of ECMO support was 27.18 days (SD: 11.59). Five patients (22.7%) had minor bleeding and one patient had oxygenator failure. Survival at hospital discharge was seven patients (31.8%).

Conclusion

Duration of ECMO support alone should not represent a basis for decision making to decide futility or continuation of ECMO support. Prolonged ECMO in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has minor complications and can lead to recovery in almost one-third of the patients.

How to cite this article

Goel K, Chakraborty A, Goel A. Outcome of Patients on Prolonged V-V ECMO at a Tertiary Care Center in India. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(11):790-794.

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.

Multi-horizon predictive models for guiding extracorporeal resource allocation in critically ill COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) resource allocation tools are currently lacking. We developed machine learning (ML) models for predicting COVID-19 patients at risk of receiving ECMO to guide patient triage and resource allocation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units for >24 h from March 2020 to October 2021, divided into training and testing development and testing-only holdout cohorts. We developed ECMO deployment timely prediction model ForecastECMO using Gradient Boosting Tree (GBT), with pre-ECMO prediction horizons from 0 to 48 h, compared to PaO2/FiO2 ratio, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy score, logistic regression, and 30 pre-selected clinical variables GBT Clinical GBT models, with area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) and precision recall curve (AUPRC) metrics.

RESULTS

ECMO prevalence was 2.89% and 1.73% in development and holdout cohorts. ForecastECMO had the best performance in both cohorts. At the 18-h prediction horizon, a potentially clinically actionable pre-ECMO window, ForecastECMO, had the highest AUROC (0.94 and 0.95) and AUPRC (0.54 and 0.37) in development and holdout cohorts in identifying ECMO patients without data 18 h prior to ECMO.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We developed a multi-horizon model, ForecastECMO, with high performance in identifying patients receiving ECMO at various prediction horizons. This model has potential to be used as early alert tool to guide ECMO resource allocation for COVID-19 patients. Future prospective multicenter validation would provide evidence for generalizability and real-world application of such models to improve patient outcomes.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: Comparison of Outcomes to Non-COVID-19-Related Viral Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry

To compare complications and mortality between patients that required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pathogens.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Adult patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry.

PATIENTS

Nine-thousand two-hundred ninety-one patients that required ECMO for viral mediated ARDS between January 2017 and December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcomes of interest were mortality during ECMO support and prior to hospital discharge. Time-to-event analysis and logistic regression were used to compare outcomes between the groups. Among 9,291 included patients, 1,155 required ECMO for non-COVID-19 viral ARDS and 8,136 required ECMO for ARDS due to COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 had longer duration of ECMO (19.6 d [interquartile range (IQR), 10.1-34.0 d] vs 10.7 d [IQR, 6.3-19.7 d]; p < 0.001), higher mortality during ECMO support (44.4% vs 27.5%; p < 0.001), and higher in-hospital mortality (50.2% vs 34.5%; p < 0.001). Further, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to experience mechanical and clinical complications (membrane lung failure, pneumothorax, intracranial hemorrhage, and superimposed infection). After adjusting for pre-ECMO disease severity, patients with COVID-19 were more than two times as likely to die in the hospital compared with patients with non-COVID-19 viral ARDS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with COVID-19 that require ECMO have longer duration of ECMO, more complications, and higher in-hospital mortality compared with patients with non-COVID-19-related viral ARDS. Further study in patients with COVID-19 is critical to identify the patient phenotype most likely to benefit from ECMO and to better define the role of ECMO in the management of this disease process.

Epidemiology, risk factors and prognosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia during severe COVID-19: Multicenter observational study across 149 European Intensive Care Units

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation are particularly at risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Risk factors and the prognostic impact of developing VAP during critical COVID-19 have not been fully documented.

METHODS

Patients invasively ventilated for at least 48 h from the prospective multicentre COVID-ICU database were included in the analyses. Cause-specific Cox regression models were used to determine factors associated with the occurrence of VAP. Cox-regression multivariable models were used to determine VAP prognosis. Risk factors and the prognostic impact of early vs. late VAP, and Pseudomonas-related vs. non-Pseudomonas-related VAP were also determined.

MAIN FINDINGS

3388 patients were analysed (63 [55-70] years, 75.8% males). VAP occurred in 1523/3388 (45.5%) patients after 7 [5-9] days of ventilation. Identified bacteria were mainly Enterobacteriaceae followed by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. VAP risk factors were male gender (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.26, 95% Confidence Interval [1.09-1.46]), concomitant bacterial pneumonia at ICU admission (HR 1.36 [1.10-1.67]), PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio at intubation (HR 0.99 [0.98-0.99] per 10 mmHg increase), neuromuscular-blocking agents (HR 0.89 [0.76-0.998]), and corticosteroids (HR 1.27 [1.09-1.47]). VAP was associated with 90-mortality (HR 1.34 [1.16-1.55]), predominantly due to late VAP (HR 1.51 [1.26-1.81]). The impact of Pseudomonas-related and non-Pseudomonas-related VAP on mortality was similar.

CONCLUSION

VAP affected almost half of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. Several risk factors have been identified, among which modifiable risk factors deserve further investigation. VAP had a specific negative impact on 90-day mortality, particularly when it occurred between the end of the first week and the third week of ventilation.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 compared to other etiologies of acute respiratory failure: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a boom in the use of V-V ECMO for ARDS secondary to COVID. Comparisons of outcomes of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for influenza have emerged. Very few comparisons of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for ARDS of all etiologies are available.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinically important outcome measures in recipients of ECMO for COVID to those observed in recipients of ECMO for ARDS of other etiologies.

METHODS

V-V ECMO recipients between March 2020 and March 2022 consisted exclusively of COVID patients and formed the COVID ECMO group. All patients who underwent V-V ECMO for ARDS between January 2014 and March 2020 were eligible for analysis as the non-COVID ECMO comparator group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included ECMO decannulation, ECMO duration >30 days, and serious complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients comprised the COVID ECMO group and were compared to 18 non-COVID ECMO patients. Survival to hospital discharge was not significantly different between the two groups (33% in COVID vs. 50% in non-COVID; p = 0.255) nor was there a significant difference in the rate of non-palliative ECMO decannulation. The proportion of patients connected to ECMO for >30 days was significantly higher in the COVID ECMO group: 69% vs. 17%; p = 0.001. There was no significant difference in serious complications.

CONCLUSION

This study could not identify a statistically significant difference in hospital survival and rate of successful ECMO decannulation between COVID ECMO and non-COVID ECMO patients. Prolonged ECMO may be more common in COVID. Complications were not significantly different.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for the treatment of ARDS in Covid-19 and influenza patients: Does etiology matter?

At the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic, the outcome of patients treated with ECMO was discouraging. Subsequently, it became clear that a certain group of patients may benefit from ECMO treatment. The primary objective of this study was to compare the outcome of ECMO treatment in COVID-19 and influenza patients referred to a tertiary care center. A total of 119 adult patients required ECMO treatment following ARDS secondary to H1N1 (49) and SARS-CoV-2 (70) in the referral ECMO Center based in Zagreb between October 2009 and October 2021. Our study revealed a significantly higher mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to H1N1 influenza when the onset of ARDS was severe enough to require ECMO support. Based on these results and current knowledge, we argue that ECMO treatment for ARDS in COVID-19 patients is more challenging compared to H1N1 influenza patients. Therefore, referral to the most experienced ECMO centers should be considered. Additionally, patient selection and timing for ECMO treatment play a key role in relation to outcome. Mortality rate in COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO treatment may be used as a reference frame for ECMO centers to ensure best possible care and outcome.

Coagulation abnormalities in patients with COVID-19 on venovenous ECLS increased risk for technical complications and support times but had no impact on survival

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress on venovenous extracorporeal lung support (V-V ECLS) showed high incidence of vascular as well as ECLS-related thrombotic complications. The latter may influence the outcome of the patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective monocentric study on prospectively collected data of technical complications including 69 adult COVID-19 patients on V-V ECLS (ECLS Registry, March 2020 until April 2021) without and with system exchanges. Alterations in ECLS-specific data, hemolysis, coagulation and hemostasis parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Every second COVID-19 patient on V-V ECLS developed technical complications. Optimized ECLS management at our ECLS center reduced cases of acute clot formation (pump head thrombosis, acute oxygenator thrombosis) (17%), and allowed early identification of progressive clotting processes (worsened gas transfer, coagulation disorder) (14%, 54%) with a significant overhang of hyperfibrinolysis (37%). Although COVID-19 disease and technical complications caused prolonged length of stay at the intensive care unit and ECLS support times, the proportion of successful weaning and survival rates were comparable with patients without system exchange.

CONCLUSION

The survival of ECLS patients with COVID-19 was independent of the requirement for system exchange due to technical-induced coagulation disorders. Close monitoring for circuit clotting is mandatory in COVID-19 patients and is one prerequisite for successful organ support in these difficult patients.