Evolving outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for severe COVID-19 ARDS in Sorbonne hospitals, Paris

Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was a cataclysmic event that infected over 772 million and killed over 6.9 million people worldwide. The pandemic pushed hospitals and society to their limits and resulted in incredibly severe respiratory disease in millions of people. This severe respiratory disease often necessitated maximum medical therapy, including the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. While our understanding of COVID-19 and its treatment continue to evolve, we review the current evidence to guide the care of patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

Immunomodulators in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a propensity-score adjusted analysis of the ELSO registry

BACKGROUND

Mortality for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19 increased over the course of the pandemic. We investigated the association between immunomodulators and mortality for patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation registry from 1 January, 2020, through 31 December, 2021, to compare the outcomes of patients who received no immunomodulators, only corticosteroids, only other immunomodulators (selective interleukin blockers, janus-kinase inhibitors, convalescent plasma, and intravenous immunoglobulin), and a combination of corticosteroids and other immunomodulators administered either before or during ECMO. We used Cox regression models to estimate survival time until 90 days. We estimated the propensity score of receiving different immunomodulators using multinomial regression, and incorporated these scores into the regression models.

RESULTS

We included 7181 patients in the final analysis; 6169 patients received immunomodulators either before or during ECMO. The 90-day survival was 58.1% (95%-CI 55.1-61.2%) for patients receiving no immunomodulators, 50.7% (95%-CI 49.0-52.5%) for those receiving only corticosteroids, 62.2% (95%-CI 57.4-67.0%) for those receiving other immunomodulators, and 48.5% (95%-CI 46.7-50.4%) for those receiving corticosteroids and other immunomodulators. Compared to patients without immunomodulators, patients receiving either corticosteroids alone (HR: 1.13, 95%-CI 1.01-1.28) or with other immunomodulators (HR: 1.21, 95%-CI: 1.07-1.54) had significantly shorter survival time, while patients receiving only other immunomodulators had significantly longer survival time (HR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.66-0.96). The receipt of immunomodulators (across all three groups) was associated with an increase in secondary infections.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study, we found that immunomodulators, in particular corticosteroids, were associated with significantly higher mortality amongst patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19, after adjusting for potential confounding variables and propensity score. In addition, patients receiving corticosteroids with or without other immunomodulators had longer ECMO runs, which has potential implications for resource allocation. While residual confounding likely remains, further studies are required to evaluate the timing of immunomodulators and better understand the possible mechanisms behind this association, including secondary infections.

Noninvasive Ventilation Before Intubation and Mortality in Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: An Analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry

Bilevel-positive airway pressure (BiPAP) is a noninvasive respiratory support modality which reduces effort in patients with respiratory failure. However, it may increase tidal ventilation and transpulmonary pressure, potentially aggravating lung injury. We aimed to assess if the use of BiPAP before intubation was associated with increased mortality in adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who received venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We used the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry to analyze adult patients with COVID-19 supported with venovenous ECMO from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients treated with BiPAP were compared with patients who received other modalities of respiratory support or no respiratory support. A total of 9,819 patients from 421 centers were included. A total of 3,882 of them (39.5%) were treated with BiPAP before endotracheal intubation. Patients supported with BiPAP were intubated later (4.3 vs . 3.3 days, p < 0.001) and showed higher unadjusted hospital mortality (51.7% vs. 44.9%, p < 0.001). The use of BiPAP before intubation and time from hospital admission to intubation resulted as independently associated with increased hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.32 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.08-1.61] and 1.03 [1-1.06] per day increase). In ECMO patients with severe acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, the extended use of BiPAP before intubation should be regarded as a risk factor for mortality.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure: A Narrative Review

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for respiratory failure in the intensive care unit continues to have an expanded role in select patients. While acute respiratory distress syndrome remains the most common indication, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be used in other causes of refractory hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia. The most common configuration is veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; however, in specific cases of refractory hypoxemia or right ventricular failure, some patients may benefit from veno-pulmonary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or veno-venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Patient selection and extracorporeal circuit management are essential to successful outcomes. This narrative review explores the physiology of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, indications and contraindications, ventilator management, extracorporeal circuit management, troubleshooting hypoxemia, complications, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning in patients with respiratory failure. As the footprint of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation continues to expand, it is essential that clinicians understand the underlying physiology and management of these complex patients.

ECMO is associated with decreased hospital mortality in COVID-19 ARDS

This study determined whether compared to conventional mechanical ventilation (MV), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with decreased hospital mortality or fibrotic changes in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. A cohort of 72 patients treated with ECMO and 390 with conventional MV were analyzed (February 2020-December 2021). A target trial was emulated comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs no ECMO within 7 days of MV in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 < 80 or a PaCO2 ≥ 60 mmHg. A total of 222 patients met the eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 42 initiated ECMO. ECMO was associated with a lower risk of hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.96). The risk was lower in patients who were younger (age < 70 years), had less comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index < 2), underwent prone positioning before ECMO, and had driving pressures ≥ 15 cmH2O at inclusion. Furthermore, ECMO was associated with a lower risk of fibrotic changes (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.11-0.70). However, the finding was limited due to relatively small number of patients and differences in observability between the ECMO and conventional MV groups.

Advanced Respiratory Support Days as a Novel Marker of Mortality in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Emerging evidence suggests prolonged use of noninvasive respiratory support may increase mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome who require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Using a database of adults receiving ECMO for COVID-19, we calculated survival curves and multivariable Cox regression to determine the risk of death associated with pre-ECMO use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) days. We investigated the performance of a novel variable, advanced respiratory support days (composite of HFNO, NIV, and IMV days), on Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction (RESP) score. Subjects (N = 146) with increasing advanced respiratory support days (<5, 5-9, and ≥10) had a stepwise increase in 90 day mortality (32.2%, 57.7%, and 75.4%, respectively; p = 0.002). Ninety-day mortality was significantly higher in subjects (N = 121) receiving NIV >4 days (81.8% vs. 52.4%, p < 0.001). Each additional pre-ECMO advanced respiratory support day increased the odds of right ventricular failure (odds ratio [OR]: 1.066, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.002-1.135) and in-hospital mortality (1.17, 95% CI: 1.08-1.27). Substituting advanced respiratory support days for IMV days improved RESP score mortality prediction (area under the curve (AUC) or: 0.64 vs. 0.71). Pre-ECMO advanced respiratory support days were associated with increased 90 day mortality compared with IMV days alone. Adjusting the RESP score for advanced respiratory support days improved mortality prediction.

Recurrent ventilator-associated pneumonia in severe Covid-19 ARDS patients requiring ECMO support

OBJECTIVE

To describe ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) recurrence in COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, and to evaluate the impact of antimicrobial treatment duration of the first VAP episode on VAP recurrence.

METHODS

Adult patients with COVID-19 severe pneumonia on ECMO admitted between March 2020 and January 2022 were retrospectively included. Primary outcome was incidence of VAP recurrence, and secondary outcome was the impact of duration of antimicrobial treatment on VAP recurrence.

RESULTS

Among the 252 included patients, 226 (90%) developed a first VAP. Sixteen had lung abscess and were excluded, leaving 210 patients. VAP recurrence occurred in 172 patients (82%), with a median (IQR) time from first VAP to recurrence of 10 (7-13) days. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae were respectively responsible for 28% and 52% of first VAP, and 51% and 62% of first recurrence episodes. Among the 210 patients with a first VAP, 158 (75%) received a short course of antibiotics [< 8 days, median (IQR) duration 6 (5-7) days] and 52 (25%) received a prolonged course of antibiotics [≥ 8 days, median (IQR) duration 9 (8-10) days]. Estimated cumulative incidence of VAP recurrence, taking into account death and extubation as competing risks, was not different in patients with short- and prolonged-antimicrobial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe Covid-19-ARDS requiring ECMO support, VAP recurrence occurs frequently, with Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa as predominant causative microorganisms. An antimicrobial treatment of ≥ 8 days for the treatment of first VAP episode did not reduce the risk of VAP recurrence, as compared to shorter duration.

Risk Factors for the Mortality of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in a Non-Centralized Setting: A Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the mortality rates of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to analyze the relationship between COVID-19 and clinical outcomes for patients receiving ECMO.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ECMO in 19 hospitals across Korea from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2021. The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality after ECMO initiation. We performed multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day mortality. Survival differences were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method.

RESULTS

Of 127 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received ECMO, 70 patients (55.1%) died within 90 days of ECMO initiation. The median age was 64 years, and 63% of patients were male. The incidence of ECMO was increased with age but was decreased after 70 years of age. However, the survival rate was decreased linearly with age. In multivariate analysis, age (OR, 1.048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.010-1.089; P = 0.014) and receipt of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (OR, 3.069; 95% CI, 1.312-7.180; P = 0.010) were significantly associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality. KM curves showed significant differences in survival between groups according to age (65 years) (log-rank P = 0.021) and receipt of CRRT (log-rank P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Older age and receipt of CRRT were associated with higher mortality rates among patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO.

Physiologic benefits of veno-pulmonary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 ARDS: A single center experience

BACKGROUND

A subset of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Veno-pulmonary (VP) ECMO provides support to the right ventricle and decreased risk of recirculation.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with COVID-19 ARDS and VP ECMO was performed. Patients were separated into groups by indication (1) "right ventricular (RV) failure," (2) "refractory hypoxemia," and (3) "recurrent suck-down events (SDEs)." Pre- and post-configuration vasoactive inotropic scores (VIS), fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2), and resolution of SDEs were reported. A 90-day mortality was computed for all groups. Patients were also compared to those who underwent conventional venovenous (VV) ECMO.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients underwent VP ECMO configuration, 18 in group 1, 16 in group 2, and 8 in group 3. Ninety-day mortality was 66% for the entire cohort and was 77.8%, 81.3% and 37.5% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean VIS decreased in group 1 (8.3 vs 2.9, p = 0.005), while mean FIO2 decreased in the group 2 and was sustained at 72 h (82.5% vs 52.5% and 47.5%, p < 0.001). Six of the eight (75%) of patients with recurrent SDEs had resolution of these events after configuration to VP ECMO. Patients with VP ECMO spent more days on ECMO (33 days compared to 18 days, p = 0.004) with no difference in mortality (66% compared to 55.1%, p = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

VP ECMO in COVID-19 ARDS improves hemodynamics in patients with RV failure, improves oxygenation in patients with refractory hypoxemia and improves the frequency of SDEs.

Severe Lung Dysfunction and Pulmonary Blood Flow during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is indicated for patients with severe respiratory and/or circulatory failure. The standard technique to visualize the extent of pulmonary damage during ECMO is computed tomography (CT).

PURPOSE

This single-center, retrospective study investigated whether pulmonary blood flow (PBF) measured with echocardiography can assist in assessing the extent of pulmonary damage and whether echocardiography and CT findings are associated with patient outcomes.

METHODS

All patients (>15 years) commenced on ECMO between 2011 and 2017 with septic shock of pulmonary origin and a treatment time >28 days were screened. Of 277 eligible patients, 9 were identified where both CT and echocardiography had been consecutively performed.

RESULTS

CT failed to indicate any differences in viable lung parenchyma within or between survivors and non-survivors at any time during ECMO treatment. Upon initiation of ECMO, the survivors (n = 5) and non-survivors (n = 4) had similar PBF. During a full course of ECMO support, survivors showed no change in PBF (3.8 ± 2.1 at ECMO start vs. 7.9 ± 4.3 L/min, p = 0.12), whereas non-survivors significantly deteriorated in PBF from 3.5 ± 1.0 to 1.0 ± 1.1 L/min (p = 0.029). Tidal volumes were significantly lower over time among the non-survivors, p = 0.047.

CONCLUSIONS

In prolonged ECMO for pulmonary septic shock, CT was not found to be effective for the evaluation of pulmonary viability or recovery. This hypothesis-generating investigation supports echocardiography as a tool to predict pulmonary recovery via the assessment of PBF at the early to later stages of ECMO support.

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.

Outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review and meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been ongoing for over 3 years, during which numerous clinical and experimental studies have been conducted. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the survival probability and complications of COVID-19 patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

METHODS

We searched the databases by using Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome-Study Design (PICOS). We conducted a search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases to retrieve studies published until December 10, 2022. A random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and assessed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score. The results were presented as pooled morbidity with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The study was conducted on 19 studies that enrolled a total of 1494 patients, and the results showed a pooled survival probability of 66.0%. The pooled morbidity for intracranial hemorrhage was 8.7%, intracranial thrombosis 7.0%, pneumothorax 9.0%, pulmonary embolism 11.0%, pulmonary hemorrhage 9.0%, heart failure 14.0%, liver failure 13.0%, renal injury 44.0%, gastrointestinal hemorrhage 6.0%, gastrointestinal ischemia 6.0% and venous thrombosis 31.0%.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies focused on the survival probability and complications of COVID-19 patients undergoing ECMO, which are significant in evaluating the use of ECMO in COVID-19 patients and provide a basis for further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022382555.

Effects of adding the second drainage cannula in severely hypoxemic patients supported with VV ECMO due to COVID-19-associated ARDS

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a recognized method of support in patients with severe and refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. While veno-venous (VV) ECMO is the most common type, some patients with severe hypoxemia may require modifications to the ECMO circuit. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of adding a second drainage cannula to the circuit in patients with refractory hypoxemia, on their gas exchange, mechanical ventilation, ECMO settings, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an observational retrospective study based on a single-center institutional registry including all consecutive cases of COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO admitted to the Centre of Extracorporeal Therapies in Warsaw between March 1, 2020 and March 1, 2022. We selected patients who had an additional drainage cannula inserted. Changes in ECMO and ventilator settings, blood oxygenation, and hemodynamic parameters, as well as clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 138 VV ECMO patients, 12 (9%) patients met the inclusion criteria. Ten patients (83%) were men, and mean age was 42.2 ± 6.8. An addition of drainage cannula resulted in a significant raise in ECMO blood flow (4.77 ± 0.44 to 5.94 ± 0.81 [L/min]; p = 0.001), and the ratio of ECMO blood flow to ECMO pump rotations per minute (RPM), whereas the raise in ECMO RPM alone was not statistically significant (3432 ± 258 to 3673 ± 340 [1/min]; p = 0.064). We observed a significant drop in ventilator FiO2 and a raise in PaO2 to FiO2 ratio, while blood lactates did not change significantly. Nine patients died in hospital, one was referred to lung transplantation center, two were discharged uneventfully.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an additional drainage cannula in severe ARDS associated with COVID-19 allows for an increased ECMO blood flow and improved oxygenation. However, we observed no further improvement in lung-protective ventilation and poor survival.

Thombosis, major bleeding, and survival in COVID-19 supported by veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the first vs second wave: a multicenter observational study in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Bleeding and thrombosis are major complications of veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

OBJECTIVES

To assess thrombosis, major bleeding (MB), and 180-day survival in patients supported by VV-ECMO between the first (March 1 to May 31, 2020) and second (June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An observational study of 309 consecutive patients (aged ≥18years) with severe COVID-19 supported by VV-ECMO was performed in 4 nationally commissioned ECMO centers in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Median age was 48 (19-75) years, and 70.6% were male. Probabilities of survival, thrombosis, and MB at 180 days in the overall cohort were 62.5% (193/309), 39.8% (123/309), and 30% (93/309), respectively. In multivariate analysis, an age of >55 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.29; 95% CI, 1.33-3.93; P = .003) and an elevated creatinine level (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.19-3.08; P = .008) were associated with increased mortality. Correction for duration of VV-ECMO support, arterial thrombosis alone (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.5-5.9; P = .002) or circuit thrombosis alone (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.4-6.3; P < .001) but not venous thrombosis increased mortality. MB during ECMO had a 3-fold risk (95% CI, 2.6-5.8, P < .001) of mortality. The first wave cohort had more males (76.7% vs 64%; P = .014), higher 180-day survival (71.1% vs 53.3%; P = .003), more venous thrombosis alone (46.4% vs 29.2%; P = .02), and lower circuit thrombosis (9.2% vs 28.1%; P < .001). The second wave cohort received more steroids (121/150 [80.6%] vs 86/159 [54.1%]; P < .0001) and tocilizumab (20/150 [13.3%] vs 4/159 [2.5%]; P = .005).

CONCLUSION

MB and thrombosis are frequent complications in patients on VV-ECMO and significantly increase mortality. Arterial thrombosis alone or circuit thrombosis alone increased mortality, while venous thrombosis alone had no effect. MB during ECMO support increased mortality by 3.9-fold.

Seventy-seven days on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome from SARS-CoV-2

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has emerged as a valid supportive intervention for severe COVID-19 pneumonia. In this report we describe the use of prolonged ECMO (77 days) to support a patient with COVID-19, ultimately resulting in lung recovery and discharge home. This report also emphasizes the value of physiotherapy in patients on ECMO and the importance of collaboration between ECMO programs and lung transplant teams in the care of these patients.

Lactate Dehydrogenase and Hemorrhagic Stroke During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19

PURPOSE

Hemorrhagic stroke (HS) is a devastating complication during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) but markers of risk stratification during COVID-19 are unknown. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is a readily available biomarker of cell injury and permeability. We sought to determine whether an elevated LDH before ECMO placement is related to the occurrence of HS during ECMO for COVID-19.

METHODS

Adult patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO between March 2020 and February 2022 were included. LDH values prior to ECMO placement were captured. Patients were categorized into high (> 750 U/L) or low (≤ 750 U/L) LDH groups. Multivariable regression modeling was used to determine the association between LDH and HS during ECMO.

RESULTS

There were 520 patients that underwent ECMO placement in 17 centers and 384 had an available LDH. Of whom, 122 (32%) had a high LDH. The overall incidence of HS was 10.9%, and patients with high LDH had a higher incidence of HS than those with low LDH level (17% vs 8%, p = 0.007). At 100 days, the probability of a HS was 40% in the high LDH group and 23% in those with a low LDH, p = 0.002. After adjustment for clinical covariates, high LDH remained associated with subsequent HS (aHR: 2.64, 95% CI 1.39-4.92). Findings were similar when restricting to patients supported by venovenous ECMO only.

CONCLUSION

Elevated LDH prior to ECMO cannulation is associated with a higher incidence of HS during device support. LDH can risk stratify cases for impending cerebral bleeding during ECMO.

New and personalized ventilatory strategies in patients with COVID-19

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and may lead to severe respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV). At hospital admission, patients can present with severe hypoxemia and dyspnea requiring increasingly aggressive MV strategies according to the clinical severity: noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), MV, and the use of rescue strategies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Among NRS strategies, new tools have been adopted for critically ill patients, with advantages and disadvantages that need to be further elucidated. Advances in the field of lung imaging have allowed better understanding of the disease, not only the pathophysiology of COVID-19 but also the consequences of ventilatory strategies. In cases of refractory hypoxemia, the use of ECMO has been advocated and knowledge on handling and how to personalize strategies have increased during the pandemic. The aims of the present review are to: (1) discuss the evidence on different devices and strategies under NRS; (2) discuss new and personalized management under MV based on the pathophysiology of COVID-19; and (3) contextualize the use of rescue strategies such as ECMO in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 Driving Force: How It Shaped the Evidence of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) became crucial in treating patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Despite the fear of viral aerosolization, non-invasive respiratory support has gained attention as a way to alleviate ICU overcrowding and reduce the risks associated with intubation. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increased demand for research, resulting in numerous publications on observational studies, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses in the past three years. This comprehensive narrative overview describes the physiological rationale, pre-COVID-19 evidence, and results of observational studies and randomized control trials regarding the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure in adult patients with COVID-19 and associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The review also highlights the significance of guidelines and recommendations provided by international societies and the need for further well-designed research to determine the optimal use of NIRS in treating this population.

Expert consensus statement on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO for COVID-19 severe ARDS: an international Delphi study

BACKGROUND

The high-quality evidence on managing COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is insufficient. Furthermore, there is little consensus on allocating ECMO resources when scarce. The paucity of evidence and the need for guidance on controversial topics required an international expert consensus statement to understand the role of ECMO in COVID-19 better. Twenty-two international ECMO experts worldwide work together to interpret the most recent findings of the evolving published research, statement formulation, and voting to achieve consensus.

OBJECTIVES

To guide the next generation of ECMO practitioners during future pandemics on tackling controversial topics pertaining to using ECMO for patients with COVID-19-related severe ARDS.

METHODS

The scientific committee was assembled of five chairpersons with more than 5 years of ECMO experience and a critical care background. Their roles were modifying and restructuring the panel's questions and, assisting with statement formulation in addition to expert composition and literature review. Experts are identified based on their clinical experience with ECMO (minimum of 5 years) and previous academic activity on a global scale, with a focus on diversity in gender, geography, area of expertise, and level of seniority. We used the modified Delphi technique rounds and the nominal group technique (NGT) through three face-to-face meetings and the voting on the statement was conducted anonymously. The entire process was planned to be carried out in five phases: identifying the gap of knowledge, validation, statement formulation, voting, and drafting, respectively.

RESULTS

In phase I, the scientific committee obtained 52 questions on controversial topics in ECMO for COVID-19, further reviewed for duplication and redundancy in phase II, resulting in nine domains with 32 questions with a validation rate exceeding 75% (Fig. 1). In phase III, 25 questions were used to formulate 14 statements, and six questions achieved no consensus on the statements. In phase IV, two voting rounds resulted in 14 statements that reached a consensus are included in four domains which are: patient selection, ECMO clinical management, operational and logistics management, and ethics.

CONCLUSION

Three years after the onset of COVID-19, our understanding of the role of ECMO has evolved. However, it is incomplete. Tota14 statements achieved consensus; included in four domains discussing patient selection, clinical ECMO management, operational and logistic ECMO management and ethics to guide next-generation ECMO providers during future pandemic situations.

Setting and Monitoring of Mechanical Ventilation During Venovenous ECMO

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2023. Other selected articles can be found online at  https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2023 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from  https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

Outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in immunosuppressed vs. Immunocompetent patients

INTRODUCTION

Immunosuppressed hosts represent a growing group of patients who suffer acute respiratory failure and may be considered for therapies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

OBJECTIVES

We conducted this retrospective study to determine whether acutely or chronically immunosuppressed patients placed on ECMO for cardiac and/or respiratory failure in our institution have different outcomes than immunocompetent patients placed on ECMO in our institution.

METHODS

Adult patients placed on ECMO between June 31, 2010 and July 7, 2021 were identified within an IRB-approved database. Data was retrospectively extracted from the database and patients' medical records. Patients who survived ECMO decannulation were sub-grouped by the presence of acute or chronic immunosuppression, defined by the use of high-dose steroids or immunosuppressive agents for greater than four weeks prior to ECMO initiation. We analyzed and compared baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes using chi-squared tests for categorical variables and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables.

RESULTS

385 patients were included in this study, with 39 identified as chronically immunosuppressed, 49 as acutely immunosuppressed, and 297 as immunocompetent. There was no statistical difference in ECMO survival (respectively 54%, 59%, 65% p = 0.359) or 30-day survival (33%, 51%, 48% p = 0.149) for chronically immunosuppressed, acutely immunosuppressed, and immunocompetent, respectively. There were significant differences in rates of pre-ECMO COVID infection (p<0.001), coronary artery disease (p<0.001), smoking (p = 0.003), and acute kidney injury (p = 0.032). Acutely immunosuppressed patients had the highest rates of new infections during ECMO (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

When compared to immunocompetent patients, both acutely and chronically immunosuppressed patients had no significant difference in ECMO survival or 30-day survival. Acutely immunosuppressed patients had less comorbidities than chronically immunosuppressed patients, but they were more commonly infected during ECMO. ECMO may still be a valuable tool in appropriately selected patients with refractory respiratory or cardiac failure.

Prognostic factors associated with mortality among patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be considered for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who continue to deteriorate despite evidence-based therapies and lung-protective ventilation. The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization has emphasised the importance of patient selection; however, to better inform these decisions, a comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of the risk factors associated with poor outcomes is necessary. We aimed to summarise the association between pre-cannulation prognostic factors and risk of mortality in adult patients requiring venovenous ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from Dec 1, 2019, to April 14, 2022, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies involving adult patients who required ECMO for COVID-19-associated ARDS and for whom pre-cannulation prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality were evaluated. We conducted separate meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (uORs), adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), and mean differences, and excluded studies if these data could not be extracted. We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Our protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework registry, osf.io/6gcy2.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 2888 studies, of which 42 observational cohort studies involving 17 449 patients were included. Factors that had moderate or high certainty of association with increased mortality included patient factors, such as older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2·27 [95% CI 1·63-3·16]), male sex (unadjusted odds ratio [uOR] 1·34 [1·20-1·49]), and chronic lung disease (aHR 1·55 [1·20-2·00]); pre-cannulation disease factors, such as longer duration of symptoms (mean difference 1·51 days [95% CI 0·36-2·65]), longer duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (uOR 1·94 [1·40-2·67]), higher partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (mean difference 4·04 mm Hg [1·64-6·44]), and higher driving pressure (aHR 2·36 [1·40-3·97]); and centre factors, such as less previous experience with ECMO (aOR 2·27 [1·28-4·05].

INTERPRETATION

The prognostic factors identified highlight the importance of patient selection, the effect of injurious lung ventilation, and the potential opportunity for greater centralisation and collaboration in the use of ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS. These factors should be carefully considered as part of a risk stratification framework when evaluating a patient for potential treatment with venovenous ECMO.

FUNDING

None.

Lung Transplantation for COVID-19 Pulmonary Sequelae

BACKGROUND

The role of lung transplantation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related lung failure is evolving as the pandemic persists.

METHODS

From January 2021 to April 2022, 20 patients (median age 62 y; range 31-77) underwent lung transplantation for COVID-related lung failure at our institution. We reviewed their clinical and intraoperative characteristics and early outcomes including postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Eleven patients (55%) had chronic lung disease when they contracted COVID-19. All 20 patients required hospitalization for antivirus treatment. Median lung allocation score was 74.7 (33.1-94.0). Thirteen patients (65%) underwent single-lung transplants, and 7 patients (35%) underwent double-lung transplants. Concomitant coronary artery bypass graft surgery was performed in 2 (10%) patients because of severe coronary artery disease. Postoperatively, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was needed in 3 patients (15%) because of severe primary graft dysfunction; all were eventually weaned. Ten patients (50%) experienced deep venous thrombosis, and 1 eventually developed a major pulmonary embolus. The median intensive care unit stay and hospital stays were 6.5 d (3-44) and 18 d (7-77), respectively. During a median follow-up of 201 d (47-418), we experienced 1 late mortality due to COVID-19-related myocarditis. Among the 13 patients with single-lung transplant, 5 demonstrated improvement in their native lungs.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung transplantation yielded favorable early outcomes in a heterogeneous patient cohort that included older patients, obese patients, and patients with coronary artery disease or preexisting chronic lung disease. Our data also shed light on the transforming role of lung transplantation for the pulmonary sequelae of a complex multisystem COVID-19 disorder.

Comparative outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 delivered in experienced European centres during successive SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks (ECMO-SURGES): an international, multicentre, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To inform future research and practice, we aimed to investigate the outcomes of patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who received ECMO for ARDS in 21 experienced ECMO centres in eight European countries (Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) between Jan 1, 2020, and Sept 30, 2021. We collected data on patient characteristics, clinical status, and management before and after the initiation of ECMO. Participants were grouped according to SARS-CoV-2 variant (wild type, alpha, delta, or other) and period of the pandemic (first [Jan 1-June 30] and second [July 1-Dec 31] semesters of 2020, and first [Jan 1-June 30] and second [July 1-Sept 30] semesters of 2021). Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyse evolving characteristics, management, and patient outcomes over the first 2 years of the pandemic, and independent risk factors of mortality were determined using multivariable Cox regression models. The primary outcome was mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO, with follow-up to Dec 30, 2021.

FINDINGS

ECMO was initiated in 1345 patients. Patient characteristics and management were similar for the groups of patients infected with different variants, except that those with the delta variant had a younger median age and less hypertension and diabetes. 90-day mortality was 42% (569 of 1345 patients died) overall, and 43% (297/686) in patients infected with wild-type SARS-CoV-2, 39% (152/391) in those with the alpha variant, 40% (78/195) in those with the delta variant, and 58% (42/73) in patients infected with other variants (mainly beta and gamma). Mortality was 10% higher (50%) in the second semester of 2020, when the wild-type variant was still prevailing, than in other semesters (40%). Independent predictors of mortality were age, immunocompromised status, a longer time from intensive care unit admission to intubation, need for renal replacement therapy, and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment haemodynamic component score, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide, and lactate concentration before ECMO. After adjusting for these variables, mortality was significantly higher with the delta variant than with the other variants, the wild-type strain being the reference.

INTERPRETATION

Although crude mortality did not differ between variants, adjusted risk of death was highest for patients treated with ECMO infected with the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. The higher virulence and poorer outcomes associated with the delta strain might relate to higher viral load and increased inflammatory response syndrome in infected patients, reinforcing the need for a higher rate of vaccination in the population and updated selection criteria for ECMO, should a new and highly virulent strain of SARS-CoV-2 emerge in the future. Mortality was noticeably lower than in other large, multicentre series of patients who received ECMO for COVID-19, highlighting the need to concentrate resources at experienced centres.

FUNDING

None.

The Year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2022

This special article is the 15th in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief Dr. Kaplan and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series, namely the research highlights of the past year in the specialties of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiology. The major themes selected for 2022 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights, in the specialties for 2022, begin with an update on COVID-19 therapies, with a focus on the temporal updates in a wide range of therapies, progressing from medical to the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and, ultimately, with lung transplantation in this high-risk group. The second major theme is focused on medical cardiology, with the authors discussing new insights into the life cycle of coronary disease, heart failure treatments, and outcomes related to novel statin therapy. The third theme is focused on mechanical circulatory support, with discussions focusing on both right-sided and left-sided temporary support outcomes and the optimal timing of deployment. The fourth and final theme is an update on cardiac surgery, with a discussion of the diverse aspects of concomitant valvular surgery and the optimal approach to procedural treatment for coronary artery disease. The themes selected for this 15th special article are only a few of the diverse advances in the specialties during 2022. These highlights will inform the reader of key updates on a variety of topics, leading to the improvement of perioperative outcomes for patients with cardiothoracic and vascular disease.

One-Year Mental and Physical Health Assessment in Survivors after Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Rationale: Long-term outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are unknown. Objectives: To assess physical examination, pulmonary function tests, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and quality of life at 6 and 12 months after ECMO onset. Methods: Multicenter, prospective study in patients who received ECMO for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome from March to June 2020 and survived hospital discharge. Measurements and Main Results: Of 80 eligible patients, 62 were enrolled in seven French ICUs. ECMO and invasive mechanical ventilation duration were 18 (11-25) and 36 (27-62) days, respectively. All were alive, but only 19/50 (38%) returned to work and 13/42 (31%) had recovered a normal sex drive at 1 year. Pulmonary function tests were almost normal at 6 months, except for Dl_CO, which was still impaired at 12 months. Mental health, role-emotional, and role-physical were the most impaired domain compared with patients receiving ECMO who did not have COVID-19. One year after ICU admission, 19/43 (44%) patients had significant anxiety, 18/43 (42%) had depression symptoms, and 21/50 (42%) were at risk for post-traumatic stress disorders. Conclusions: Despite the partial recovery of the lung function tests at 1 year, the physical and psychological function of this population remains impaired. Based on the comparison with long-term follow-up of patients receiving ECMO who did not have COVID-19, poor mental and physical health may be more related to COVID-19 than to ECMO in itself, although this needs confirmation.

The role of ECMO in COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: Defining risk factors for mortality

BACKGROUND

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) utilization increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, but without patient selection criteria.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all adult patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS placed on VV ECMO at our institution from April 2020 through June 2022.

RESULTS

162 patients were included (n = 95 Pre-Delta; n = 58 Delta; n = 9 Omicron). The frequency of ECMO duration greater than three weeks was variable by pandemic period (17% pre-Delta, 41% Delta, 22% Omicron, p = 0.003). In-hospital mortality was 60.5%. Age ≥50 years (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01, 1.62), ≥7 days of respiratory support (1.39, 95% CI 1.05, 1.83) and pre-cannulation renal failure requiring dialysis (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.13, 1.78) were associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of VV ECMO patients with COVID-19, older age, a longer duration of pre-ECMO respiratory support, and pre-ECMO renal failure all increased the risk of mortality by approximately 30%.

Mortality of COVID-19 Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation During the Three Epidemic Waves

Clinical presentation and mortality of patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) were different during the French epidemic waves. The management of COVID-19 patients evolved through waves as much as knowledge on that new viral disease progressed. We aimed to compare the mortality rate through the first three waves of CARDS patients on ECMO and identify associated risk factors. Fifty-four consecutive ECMO for CARDS hospitalized at Amiens University Hospital during the three waves were included. Patients were divided into three groups according to their hospitalization date. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups. Pre-ECMO risk factors predicting 90 day mortality were evaluated using multivariate Cox regression. Among 54 ECMO (median age of 61[48-65] years), 26% were hospitalized during the first wave (n = 14/54), 26% (n = 14/54) during the second wave, and 48% (n = 26/54) during the third wave. Time from first symptoms to ECMO was higher during the second wave than the first wave. (17 [12-23] days vs. 11 [9-15]; p < 0.05). Ninety day mortality was higher during the second wave (85% vs. 43%; p < 0.05) but less during the third wave (38% vs. 85%; P < 0.05). Respiratory ECMO survival prediction score and time from symptoms onset to ECMO (HR 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.20; p < 0.001) were independent factors of mortality. After adjustment, time from symptoms onset to ECMO was an independent factor of 90 day mortality. Changes in CARDS management from first to second wave-induced a later ECMO cannulation from symptoms onset with higher mortality during that wave. The duration of COVID-19 disease progression could be selection criteria for initiating ECMO.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Score Analysis

Revised guidelines clarify indications for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Limited data exist to compare clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients to non-COVID-19-related ARDS patients when supported with ECMO. An observational propensity-matched study was performed to compare clinical and ECMO-related complications between COVID-19-related ARDS patients (COVID) and non-COVID-19-related ARDS (Control). COVID- patients cannulated from March 1st, 2020, through June 1st, 2021, were included and matched to patients from the historical cohort at our center from 2012 to 2020 based on age, body mass index (BMI), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, and duration ECMO run. The primary outcome was complications during ECMO therapy. A total of 56 patients were propensity matched 1:1 with a mean age of 40.9 years, BMI 32.1 kg/m2, APACHE II score of 26.6, and duration of ECMO support of 22.6 days. In total 18 COVID-19 patients were observed to have more major bleeding complications (18 vs. 9, p = 0.03). Although not statistically significant, they also had more strokes (6 vs. 3) and required more chest tubes (13 vs. 8). Inpatient mortality was not different. ECMO support in COVID-19 patients is associated with more major bleeding complications, strokes, and chest tube placements. The use of ECMO in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS appears to be associated with an increased risk of complications.

The Use of ECMO for COVID-19: Lessons Learned

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen an increase in global cases of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with a concomitant increased demand for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Outcomes of patients with severe ARDS due to COVID-19 infection receiving ECMO support are evolving. The need for surge capacity, practical and ethical limitations on implementing ECMO, and the prolonged duration of ECMO support in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS has revealed limitations in organization and resource utilization. Coordination of efforts at multiple levels, from research to implementation, resulted in numerous innovations in the delivery of ECMO.

Trends in survival during the pandemic in patients with critical COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation with or without ECMO: analysis of the Japanese national registry data

Background

The survival rate of patients with critical coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) over time is inconsistent in different settings. In Japan, a national database was organized to monitor and share the patient generation across the country in an immediate response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate changes in survival over time and the prognostic factors in critical COVID-19 patients receiving mechanical ventilation with/without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) using the largest database in Japan.

Methods

This is a prospective observational cohort study of patients admitted to intensive care units in Japan with fatal COVID-19 pneumonia receiving mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO. We developed a prospective nationwide registry covering > 80% of intensive care units in Japan, and analyzed the association between patients’ backgrounds, institutional ECMO experience, and timing of treatment initiation and prognosis between February 2020 and November 2021. Prognostic factors were evaluated by Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis.

Results

A total of 9418 patients were ventilated, of whom 1214 (13%) received ECMO. The overall survival rate for ventilated patients was 79%, 65% for those receiving ECMO. There have been five outbreaks in Japan to date. The survival rate of ventilated patients increased from 76% in the first outbreak to 84% in the fifth outbreak (p < 0.001). The survival rate of ECMO patients remained unchanged at 60–68% from the first to fifth outbreaks (p = 0.084). Age of ≥ 59 (hazard ratio [HR] 2.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.76–2.68), ventilator days of ≥ 3 before starting ECMO (HR 1.91; 95% CI 1.57–2.32), and institutional ECMO experiences of ≥ 11 (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.58–0.85) were independent prognostic factors for ECMO.

Conclusions

During five COVID-19 outbreaks in Japan, the survival rate of ventilated patients tended to have gradually improved, and that of ECMO patients did not deteriorate. Older age, longer ventilator days before starting ECMO, and fewer institutional ECMO experiences may be independent prognostic factors for critical COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO.

Outcomes of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in COVID-19-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Inverse Probability Weighted Analysis

Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has been used in case of COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), outcomes and criteria for its application should be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To describe patient characteristics and outcomes in patients receiving VV ECMO due to COVID-19-induced ARDS and to assess the possible impact of COVID-19 on mortality.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter retrospective study in 15 ICUs worldwide. All adult patients (> 18 yr) were included if they received VV ECMO with ARDS as main indication. Two groups were created: a COVID-19 cohort from March 2020 to December 2020 and a "control" non-COVID ARDS cohort from January 2018 to July 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Collected data consisted of patient demographics, baseline variables, ECMO characteristics, and patient outcomes. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included patient characteristics, COVID-19-related therapies before and during ECMO and complication rate. To assess the influence of COVID-19 on mortality, inverse probability weighted (IPW) analyses were used to correct for predefined confounding variables.

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients with COVID-19 received VV ECMO. The main indication for VV ECMO consisted of refractory hypoxemia, either isolated or combined with refractory hypercapnia. Complications with the highest occurrence rate included hemorrhage, an additional infectious event or acute kidney injury. Mortality was 35% and 45% at 28 and 60 days, respectively. Those mortality rates did not differ between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in 2020. Furthermore, 60-day mortality was equal between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19-associated ARDS receiving VV ECMO (hazard ratio 60-d mortality, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98; p = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Mortality for patients with COVID-19 who received VV ECMO was similar to that reported in other COVID-19 cohorts, although no differences were found between the first and second waves regarding mortality. In addition, after IPW, mortality was independent of the etiology of ARDS.

Does the intubation timeline affect the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients? A retrospective cohort study

Background

Effective strategies for managing coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients suffering from acute respiratory distress are constantly evolving. The timeline and threshold for transitioning from non-invasive ventilation to intermittent mandatory ventilation in critical cases who develop COVID-19-related respiratory distress are undetermined. The present research intends to investigate if emergency room intubations in COVID-19 patients affect mortality.

Methods

Between January 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021, we retrospectively reviewed chart analysis on all patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 screening and who underwent endotracheal intubation. Depending on when the intubation was performed; early in the emergency room or delayed outside the emergency room, patients were separated into two cohorts. In addition to comorbid clinical manifestations, the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, and in-hospital mortality were all recorded as demographic and clinical information.

Results

Fifty-eight of the 224 corona-positive patients who underwent intubation had their intubations performed in the emergency room. Age, sex, alcohol use, and smoking status did not significantly differ between the two categories at the baseline. The mean qSOFA score was higher in the early intubation cohort (3.5; p < 0.000) along with more underlying comorbidities (3.0; p < 0.000). When compared to the late intubation cohort (45.78%), patients treated with early intubation had a significantly greater death rate (67.24%).

Conclusion

In summary, we discovered that patients who underwent intubation in the emergency units exhibited a high quick SOFA score as well as maximum co-morbid conditions than patients intubated somewhere else in the hospital. The findings of our investigation imply that intubating patients too early might be risky.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: A narrative review

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an established rescue therapy in the management of refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although ECMO played an important role in previous respiratory viral epidemics, concerns about the benefits and usefulness of this technique were raised during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Indeed, the mortality rate initially reported in small case series from China was concerning and exceeded 90%. A few months later, the critical care community published the findings from several observational cohorts on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19-related ARDS. Contrary to the preliminary results, data from the first surge supported the use of ECMO in experienced centers because the mortality rate was comparable to those from the ECMO to Rescue Lung Injury in Severe ARDS (EOLIA) trial or other large prospective studies. However, the mortality rate of the population with severe disease evolved during the pandemic, in conjunction with changes in the management of the disease and the occurrence of new variants. The results from subsequent studies confirmed that the outcomes mainly depend on strict patient selection and center expertise. In comparison with non-COVID-related ARDS, the duration of ECMO for COVID-related ARDS was longer and increased over time. Clinicians and decision-makers must integrate this finding in the ECMO decision-making process to plan their ICU capacity and resource allocation. This narrative review summarizes the current evidence and specific considerations for ECMO use in COVID-19-associated ARDS.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: an evolving experience through multiple waves

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has shown variable results in COVID‐19 pneumonia however, some evidence supports benefit. Here we compare our institution's ECMO outcomes across multiple waves of the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Methods

All patients who received ECMO for COVID‐19 between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2021, were reviewed. Patients received venovenous (VV) or right ventricular assist device (RVAD/ECMO) ECMO. Early (March 1–July 6, 2020, Era 1) and late (July 7, 2020–March 1, 2021, Era 2) pandemic RVAD/ECMO patients were compared.

Results

Fifty‐four patients received ECMO of which 16 (29.6%) patients received VV ECMO and 38 (70.4%) RVAD/ECMO. Median age was 53.0 years, body mass index 36.1 kg/m², 41.2% female, and 49% Caucasian. The most common pre‐cannulation treatments included steroids (79.6%) and convalescent plasma (70.4%). Median time from admission to cannulation was 7.0 days. Median support time was 30.5 days (VV ECMO 35.0 days, RVAD/ECMO 26.0 days). In‐ hospital mortality was 42.6% (39.5% RVAD/ECMO, 50.0% VV ECMO). Significant morbidities included infection (80.8%), bleeding events (74.5%), and renal replacement therapy (30.8%). Cumulative mortality 120‐days post‐cannulation was 45.7% (VV ECMO 60.8%, RVAD/ECMO 40.0%). RVAD/ECMO Era 1 demonstrated a significantly lower cumulative mortality (16.2%) compared to Era 2 (60.4%). Competing risk analysis found age (HR 0.95, [95% CI 0.92, 0.98] p = 0.005) to be a protective factor for survival.

Conclusion

ECMO support for COVID‐19 is beneficial but carries significant morbidity. RVAD/ECMO support demonstrated consistent advantages in survival to VV‐ECMO, but with declining efficacy across time during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis

Rationale: Whether patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-day mortality versus IMV only. Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO versus no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 < 80 or PaCO2 ⩾ 60 mm Hg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model on the basis of predefined variables. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability on Day 7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs. 83%; risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0-9%), which decreased during follow-up (survival on Day 90: 63% vs. 65%; risk difference, -2%; 95% confidence interval, -10 to 5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand and when initiated within the first 4 days of IMV and in patients who are profoundly hypoxemic. Conclusions: In an emulated trial on the basis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in a Large Cohort of Lung Transplant Recipients: A Retrospective Study

Background: Early reports of COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients (LTRs) showed high hospitalization and mortality rates. However, the outcomes of COVID-19 in LTRs since the advent of newer therapies and vaccines have been poorly defined. Methods: We evaluated the risks for SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization and mortality in a cohort of LTRs at the Henry Ford Lung Transplant Program in Detroit, Michigan during the study period March 2020–March 2022. Univariate logistic regression, followed by multivariable modeling were performed to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confident intervals (CI). Results: Sixty-four laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified in 59 patients. For the primary analysis of the hospitalization and mortality risks, we included these 59 patients with symptomatic COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from a nasopharynx swab. The mean age (±STD) was 61 (±12), 63% were males, 27% were African Americans, and the time from lung transplant to COVID-19 was 5.5 (±4.8) years. Thirty-four (57.6%) patients were hospitalized, and the inpatient mortality rate was 24% (8/34). A multivariable analysis showed that patients with a higher baseline forced expiratory volume (FEV1) were less likely to be hospitalized (OR = 0.91 and 95% CI 0.87–0.98, p = 0.02). Seventy-five percent (75%; 6/8) of patients on invasive mechanical ventilation died, compared with only 8% mortality rate in those without mechanical ventilation (OR = 36.0 and 95% CI 4.2–310.4, p < 0.01). Although a trend toward a higher risk of death was observed in those infected during the Alpha (p = 0.17) and Delta (p = 0.22) waves, no significant risk was detected after adjusting for other covariates. Five LTRs were diagnosed with COVID-19 twice. Thirty of the sixty-four COVID-19 cases (46.8%) occurred in LTRs that had received at least two doses of any of the available mRNA vaccines at a median of 123 days (IQR 98–164 days) after vaccination. Twelve of the thirty (40%) were hospitalized, and four patients (33%) died during their hospitalizations. Conclusions: In our LTR population, the hospitalization and mortality rates associated with COVID-19 were high despite the increased use of new therapies. Vaccine-breakthrough infections were common and were associated with poor outcomes. Studies are needed to determine optimal prevention and therapeutic strategies to improve COVID-19 outcomes in LTRs.

Bleeding and thrombotic events in patients with severe COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a nationwide cohort study

PURPOSE

To describe bleeding and thrombotic events and their risk factors in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate their impact on in-hospital mortality.

METHODS

The ECMOSARS registry included COVID-19 patients supported by ECMO in France. We analyzed all patients included up to March 31, 2022 without missing data regarding bleeding and thrombotic events. The association of bleeding and thrombotic events with in-hospital mortality and pre-ECMO variables was assessed using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 620 patients supported by ECMO, 29% had only bleeding events, 16% only thrombotic events and 20% both bleeding and thrombosis. Cannulation site (18% of patients), ear nose and throat (12%), pulmonary bleeding (9%) and intracranial hemorrhage (8%) were the most frequent bleeding types. Device-related thrombosis and pulmonary embolism/thrombosis accounted for most of thrombotic events. In-hospital mortality was 55.7%. Bleeding events were associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) = 2.91[1.94-4.4]) but not thrombotic events (adjOR = 1.02[0.68-1.53]). Intracranial hemorrhage was strongly associated with in-hospital mortality (adjOR = 13.5[4.4-41.5]). Ventilation duration before ECMO ≥ 7 days and length of ECMO support were associated with bleeding. Thrombosis-associated factors were fibrinogen ≥ 6 g/L and length of ECMO support.

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide cohort of COVID-19 patients supported by ECMO, bleeding incidence was high and associated with mortality. Intracranial hemorrhage incidence was higher than reported for non-COVID patients and carried the highest risk of death. Thrombotic events were less frequent and not associated with mortality. Length of ECMO support was associated with a higher risk of both bleeding and thrombosis, supporting the development of strategies to minimize ECMO duration.

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.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation during Respiratory Pandemics: Past, Present, and Future

The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of severe acute respiratory failure, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, has become better defined in recent years in light of emerging high-quality evidence and technological advances. Use of ECMO has consequently increased throughout many parts of the world. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, however, has highlighted deficiencies in organizational capacity, research capability, knowledge sharing, and resource use. Although governments, medical societies, hospital systems, and clinicians were collectively unprepared for the scope of this pandemic, the use of ECMO, a highly resource-intensive and specialized form of life support, presented specific logistical and ethical challenges. As the pandemic has evolved, there has been greater collaboration in the use of ECMO across centers and regions, together with more robust data reporting through international registries and observational studies. Nevertheless, centralization of ECMO capacity is lacking in many regions of the world, and equitable use of ECMO resources remains uneven. There are no widely available mechanisms to conduct large-scale, rigorous clinical trials in real time. In this critical care review, we outline lessons learned during COVID-19 and prior respiratory pandemics in which ECMO was used, and we describe how we might apply these lessons going forward, both during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in the future.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first three waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A retrospective single-center registry study

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing knowledge about the optimal treatment for patients with severe COVID-19, data from different cohorts suggested that survival of patients treated with ECMO seemed to decline over the course of the pandemic.

METHODS

In this non-interventional retrospective single-center registry study we analyzed all consecutive patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and supported with VV ECMO in our center during the first three waves of the pandemic. From March 2020 through June 2021, 59 patients have been included.

RESULTS

Overall 90-day survival was 32%. Besides changes in drug treatment for COVID-19 and a lower PaO₂ /FiO₂ ratio before ECMO initiation during the third wave, all other patient baseline characteristics were similar during the three waves. Survival rate was highest during the first wave and lowest during the third wave, yet this difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

VV ECMO has shown to be a feasible and safe support option for patients with severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The results from this single-center study confirm findings from other cohorts showing declining survival rates of patients treated with VV ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the specific reasons for this finding remain unclear.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first three waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic - a retrospective single-center registry study

Background

Despite increasing knowledge about the optimal treatment for patients with severe COVID‐19, data from different cohorts suggested that survival of patients treated with ECMO seemed to decline over the course of the pandemic.

Methods

In this non‐interventional retrospective single‐center registry study we analyzed all consecutive patients tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and supported with VV ECMO in our center during the first three waves of the pandemic. From March 2020 through June 2021, 59 patients have been included.

Results

Overall 90‐day survival was 32%. Besides changes in drug treatment for COVID‐19 and a lower PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio before ECMO initiation during the third wave, all other patient baseline characteristics were similar during the three waves. Survival rate was highest during the first wave and lowest during the third wave, yet this difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

VV ECMO has shown to be a feasible and safe support option for patients with severe respiratory failure due to COVID‐19. The results from this single‐center study confirm findings from other cohorts showing declining survival rates of patients treated with VV ECMO during the COVID‐19 pandemic, however, the specific reasons for this finding remain unclear.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome in Poland: a multicenter cohort study

Background

In Poland, the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remain unknown. This study aimed to answer these unknowns by analyzing data collected from high-volume ECMO centers willing to participate in this project.

Methods

This retrospective, multicenter cohort study was completed between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2021 (15 months). Data from all patients treated with ECMO for COVID-19 were analyzed. Pre-ECMO laboratory and treatment data were compared between non-survivors and survivors. Independent predictors for death in the intensive care unit (ICU) were identified.

Results

There were 171 patients admitted to participating centers requiring ECMO for refractory hypoxemia due to COVID-19 during the defined time period. A total of 158 patients (mean age: 46.3 ± 9.8 years) were analyzed, and 13 patients were still requiring ECMO at the end of the observation period. Most patients (88%) were treated after October 1, 2020, 77.8% were transferred to ECMO centers from another facility, and 31% were transferred on extracorporeal life support. The mean duration of ECMO therapy was 18.0 ± 13.5 days. The crude ICU mortality rate was 74.1%. In the group of 41 survivors, 37 patients were successfully weaned from ECMO support and four patients underwent a successful lung transplant. In-hospital death was independently associated with pre-ECMO lactate level (OR 2.10 per 1 mmol/L, p = 0.017) and BMI (OR 1.47 per 5 kg/m², p = 0.050).

Conclusions

The ICU mortality rate among patients requiring ECMO for COVID-19 in Poland was high. In-hospital death was independently associated with increased pre-ECMO lactate levels and BMI.

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.

Respiratory indications for ECMO: focus on COVID-19

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly being used for patients with severe respiratory failure and has received particular attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Evidence from two key randomized controlled trials, a subsequent post hoc Bayesian analysis, and meta-analyses support the interpretation of a benefit of ECMO in combination with ultra-lung-protective ventilation for select patients with very severe forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During the pandemic, new evidence has emerged helping to better define the role of ECMO for patients with COVID-19. Results from large cohorts suggest outcomes during the first wave of the pandemic were similar to those in non-COVID-19 cohorts. As the pandemic continued, mortality of patients supported with ECMO has increased. However, the precise reasons for this observation are unclear. Known risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients are higher patient age, concomitant extra-pulmonary organ failures or malignancies, prolonged mechanical ventilation before ECMO, less experienced treatment teams and lower ECMO caseloads in the treating center. ECMO is a high resource-dependent support option; therefore, it should be used judiciously, and its availability may need to be constrained when resources are scarce. More evidence from high-quality research is required to better define the role and limitations of ECMO in patients with severe COVID-19.