Use of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Critically-Ill Patients With COVID-19

Prone Positioning During Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis

The available literature has furnished substantial evidence indicating the favorable outcomes of prone positioning (PP) on oxygenation parameters among patients afflicted with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is a notable disparity in the reported influence of PP on the overall outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) across studies. This article has been prepared in adherence with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were utilized for data retrieval. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the cumulative survival rate among COVID-19 patients receiving V-V ECMO, comparing those who received PP to those who did not. Secondary endpoints included the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ECMO duration, and mechanical ventilation duration. A total of 15 studies involving 2286 patients were analyzed in the meta-analysis. PP significantly improved the cumulative survival rate (0.48, 95% CI: 0.40-0.55); risk ratio (RR) of 1.24 (95% CI: 1.11-1.38).PP during ECMO for COVID-19 patients yielded favorable outcomes in terms of 60-day survival, 90-day survival, ICU survival, and hospital survival. In contrast, patients who underwent PP had longer ECMO duration (8.1 days, 95% CI: 6.2-9.9, p<0.001) and mechanical ventilation duration (9.6 days, 95% CI: 8.0-11.2, p<0.001). PP demonstrated improved survival in COVID-19 patients with ARDS receiving V-V ECMO. However, additional well-designed prospective trials are warranted to further explore the effects of this combination on survival outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

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.

Respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The association of respiratory mechanics, particularly respiratory system static compliance (C_RS), with severity of hypoxaemia in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been widely debated, with some studies reporting distinct ARDS phenotypes based on C_RS. Ascertaining whether such phenotypes exist is important, because they might indicate the need for ventilation strategies that differ from those used in patients with ARDS due to other causes. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between Dec 1, 2019, and March 14, 2022, we evaluated respiratory system mechanics, ventilator parameters, gas exchange parameters, and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Among 11 356 patients in 37 studies, mean reported C_RS, measured close to the time of endotracheal intubation, was 35·8 mL/cm H₂O (95% CI 33·9-37·8; I²=96·9%, τ²=32·6). Pooled mean C_RS was normally distributed. Increasing ARDS severity (assessed by PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio as mild, moderate, or severe) was associated with decreasing C_RS. We found no evidence for distinct C_RS-based clinical phenotypes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, and we therefore conclude that no change in conventional lung-protective ventilation strategies is warranted. Future studies should explore the personalisation of mechanical ventilation strategies according to factors including respiratory system mechanics and haemodynamic status in patients with ARDS.

Evolving outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used extensively for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Reports early in the pandemic suggested that mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO was comparable to non-COVID-19-related ARDS. However, subsequent reports suggested that mortality appeared to be increasing over time. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, to characterise changes in mortality over time and elucidate risk factors for poor outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis (CRD42021271202), searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases, from 1 December 2019 to 26 January 2022, for studies reporting on mortality among adults with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. We also captured hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and ECMO, as well as complications of ECMO. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and evaluated certainty of pooled estimates using GRADE methodology.

Results

Of 4522 citations, we included 52 studies comprising 18,211 patients in the meta-analysis. The pooled mortality rate among patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO was 48.8% (95% confidence interval 44.8–52.9%, high certainty). Mortality was higher among studies which enrolled patients later in the pandemic as opposed to earlier (1st half 2020: 41.2%, 2nd half 2020: 46.4%, 1st half 2021: 62.0%, 2nd half 2021: 46.5%, interaction p value = 0.0014). Predictors of increased mortality included age, the time of final patient enrolment from 1 January 2020, and the proportion of patients receiving corticosteroids, and reduced duration of ECMO run.

Conclusions

The mortality rate for patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS has increased as the pandemic has progressed. The reasons for this are likely multifactorial; however, as outcomes for these patients evolve, the decision to initiate ECMO should include the best contextual estimate of mortality at the time of ECMO initiation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04011-2.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by a clinical spectrum of diseases ranging from asymptomatic or mild cases to severe pneumonia with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring mechanical ventilation. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as rescue therapy in appropriate patients with COVID-19 complicated by ARDS refractory to mechanical ventilation. In this study, we review the indications, challenges, complications, and clinical outcomes of ECMO utilization in critically ill patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Most of these patients required venovenous ECMO. Although the risk of mortality and complications is very high among patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO, it is similar to that of non-COVID-19 patients with ARDS requiring ECMO. ECMO is a resource-intensive therapy, with an inherent risk of complications, which makes its availability limited and its use challenging in the midst of a pandemic. Well-maintained data registries, with timely reporting of outcomes and evidence-based clinical guidelines, are necessary for the careful allocation of resources and for the development of standardized utilization protocols.

Impact of COVID-19 on the association between pulse oximetry and arterial oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Managing patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requires frequent changes in mechanical ventilator respiratory settings to optimize arterial oxygenation assessed by arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO₂) and saturation (SaO₂). Pulse oxymetry (SpO₂) has been suggested as a non-invasive surrogate for arterial oxygenation however its accuracy in COVID-19 patients is unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the influence of COVID-19 status on the association between SpO₂ and arterial oxygenation. We prospectively included patients with ARDS and compared COVID-19 to non-COVID-19 patients, regarding SpO₂ and concomitant arterial oxygenation (SaO₂ and PaO₂) measurements, and their association. Bias was defined as mean difference between SpO₂ and SaO₂ measurements. Occult hypoxemia was defined as a SpO₂ ≥ 92% while concomitant SaO₂ < 88%. Multiple linear regression models were built to account for confounders. We also assessed concordance between positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) trial-induced changes in SpO₂ and in arterial oxygenation. We included 55 patients, among them 26 (47%) with COVID-19. Overall, SpO₂ and SaO₂ measurements were correlated (r = 0.70; p < 0.0001), however less so in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients (r = 0.55, p < 0.0001 vs. r = 0.84, p < 0.0001, p = 0.002 for intergroup comparison). Bias was + 1.1%, greater in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients (2.0 vs. 0.3%; p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, bias was associated with COVID-19 status (unstandardized β = 1.77, 95%CI = 0.38–3.15, p = 0.01), ethnic group and ARDS severity. Occult hypoxemia occurred in 5.5% of measurements (7.7% in COVID-19 patients vs. 3.4% in non-COVID-19 patients, p = 0.42). Concordance rate between PEEP trial-induced changes in SpO₂ and SaO₂ was 84%, however less so in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients (69% vs. 97%, respectively). Similar results were observed for PaO₂ regarding correlations, bias, and concordance with SpO₂ changes. In patients with ARDS, SpO₂ was associated with arterial oxygenation, but COVID-19 status significantly altered this association.

Effect of prone positioning on survival in adult patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Previous studies support the potential efficacy of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) for improving survival in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) cases. Prone positioning (PP) has been shown to improve the outcomes of moderate-to-severe ARDS patients. Few studies and no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effect of PP performed in ECMO patients.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effect of prone positioning for ARDS patients receiving vvECMO on survival. All authors were contacted to obtain complementary information not mentioned in the original articles. The main objective was to compare 28-day survival in vvECMO patients with PP to vvECMO patients without PP (controls).

Results

Thirteen studies with a combined population of 1836 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. PP was associated with a significant improvement in 28-day survival (503 survivors among 681 patients in the PP group [74%; 95% CI 71–77] vs. 450 survivors among 770 patients in the control group [58%, 95% CI 55–62]; RR 1.31 [95% CI 1.21–1.41]; I² 22% [95% CI 0–62%]; P < 0.0001). Survival was also improved in terms of other endpoints (60-day survival, 90-day survival, ICU survival, and hospital survival). In contrast, the duration of mechanical ventilation was increased in vvECMO patients with PP (mean difference 11.4 days [95% CI 9.2–13.5]; 0.64 [95% CI 0.50–0.78]; I² 8%; P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

According to this meta-analysis, survival was improved when prone positioning was used in ARDS patients receiving vvECMO. The impact of this combination on survival should be investigated in prospective randomized controlled trials.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06604-x.

Effects of Prone Positioning on Respiratory Mechanics and Oxygenation in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Background:

The effect of prone positioning (PP) on respiratory mechanics remains uncertain in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO).

Methods:

We prospectively analyzed the effects of PP on respiratory mechanics from continuous data with over a thousand time points during 16-h PP sessions in patients with COVID-19 and ARDS under VV-ECMO conditions. The evolution of respiratory mechanical and oxygenation parameters during the PP sessions was evaluated by dividing each PP session into four time quartiles: first quartile: 0–4 h, second quartile: 4–8 h, third quartile: 8–12 h, and fourth quartile: 12–16 h.

Results:

Overall, 38 PP sessions were performed in 10 patients, with 3 [2–5] PP sessions per patient. Seven (70%) patients were responders to at least one PP session. PP significantly increased the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio by 14 ± 21% and compliance by 8 ± 15%, and significantly decreased the oxygenation index by 13 ± 18% and driving pressure by 8 ± 12%. The effects of PP on respiratory mechanics but not on oxygenation persisted after supine repositioning. PP-induced changes in different respiratory mechanical parameters and oxygenation started as early as the first-time quartile, without any difference in PP-induced changes among the different time quartiles. PP-induced changes in driving pressure (−14 ± 14 vs. −6 ± 10%, p = 0.04) and mechanical power (−11 ± 13 vs. −0.1 ± 12%, p = 0.02) were significantly higher in responders (increase in PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio > 20%) than in non-responder patients.

Conclusions:

In patients with COVID-19 and severe ARDS, PP under VV-ECMO conditions improved the respiratory mechanical and oxygenation parameters, and the effects of PP on respiratory mechanics persisted after supine repositioning.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO.

RESULTS

We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3-42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7-40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4-18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5-82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627.