Retrospective Study of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients With and Without Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in Wuhan, China

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuits in parallel for refractory hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Refractory hypoxemia can occur in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome from COVID-19 despite support with venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Parallel ECMO circuits can be used to increase physiologic support. We report our clinical experience using ECMO circuits in parallel for select patients with persistent severe hypoxemia despite the use of a single ECMO circuit.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome who received VV-ECMO with an additional circuit in parallel at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2022. We report demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics including ECMO settings, mechanical ventilator settings, use of adjunctive therapies, and arterial blood gas results after initial cannulation, before and after receipt of a second ECMO circuit in parallel, and before removal of the circuit in parallel, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 84 patients with COVID-19 who received VV-ECMO during the study period, 22 patients (26.2%) received a circuit in parallel. The median duration of ECMO was 40.0 days (interquartile range, 31.6-53.1 days), of which 19.0 days (interquartile range, 13.0-33.0 days) were spent with a circuit in parallel. Of the 22 patients who received a circuit in parallel, 16 (72.7%) survived to hospital discharge and 6 (27.3%) died before discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

In select patients, the additional use of an ECMO circuit in parallel can increase ECMO blood flow and improve oxygenation while allowing for lung-protective mechanical ventilation and excellent outcomes.

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.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 and influenza associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used extensively for H1N1 influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to improve gas exchange and quickly correct hypoxemia and hypercapnia. This systematic review summarized the evidence on ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19 and influenza-associated ARDS.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to compare the efficacy and safety of ECMO with conventional mechanical ventilation in adults with COVID-19 and influenza-associated ARDS. The study performed a structured search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and The Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The study included 15 observational studies with 5239 patients with COVID-19 and influenza-associated ARDS. The use of ECMO significantly reduced in-hospital mortality in COVID-19-associated ARDS (OR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.27-0.58; P < 0.00001) but did not reduce influenza-related mortality (OR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.41-2.87; P = 0.87). Moreover, ECMO treatment meaningfully increased the incidence of bleeding complications (OR = 7.66; 95% CI = 2.47-23.72; P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

The use of ECMO significantly reduced in-hospital mortality in COVID-19- associated ARDS, which may be related to the advances in ECMO-related techniques and the increased experience of clinicians. However, the incidence of bleeding complications remains high. [Figure: see text].

Inflammatory Biomarkers Affecting Survival Prognosis in Patients Receiving Veno-Venous ECMO for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia

Severe COVID-19 pneumonia in which mechanical ventilation is unable to achieve adequate gas exchange can be treated with veno-venous ECMO, eliminating the need for aggressive mechanical ventilation which might promote ventilator-induced lung injury and increase mortality. In this retrospective observational study, 18 critically ill COVID-19 patients who were treated using V-V ECMO during an 11-month period in a tertiary COVID-19 hospital were analyzed. Biomarkers of inflammation and clinical features were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Survival rates were compared between patients receiving ECMO and propensity matched mechanically ventilated controls. There were 7 survivors and 11 non-survivors. The survivors were significantly younger, with a higher proportion of females, higher serum procalcitonin at ICU admission, and before initiation of ECMO they had significantly lower Murray scores, PaCO₂, WBC counts, serum ferritin levels, and higher glomerular filtration rates. No significant difference in mortality was found between patients treated with ECMO compared to patients treated using conventional lung protective ventilation. Hypercapnia, leukocytosis, reduced glomerular filtration rate, and increased serum ferritin levels prior to initiation of V-V ECMO in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia may be early warning signs of reduced chance of survival. Further multicentric studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Mortality rates of severe COVID-19-related respiratory failure with and without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the Middle Ruhr Region of Germany

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is discussed to improve patients' outcome in severe COVID-19 with respiratory failure, but data on ECMO remains controversial. The aim of the study was to determine the characteristics of patients under invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with or without veno-venous ECMO support and to evaluate outcome parameters. Ventilated patients with COVID-19 with and without additional ECMO support were analyzed in a retrospective multicenter study regarding clinical characteristics, respiratory and laboratory parameters in day-to-day follow-up. Recruitment of patients was conducted during the first three COVID-19 waves at four German university hospitals of the Ruhr University Bochum, located in the Middle Ruhr Region. From March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2021, the charts of 149 patients who were ventilated for COVID-19 infection, were included (63.8% male, median age 67 years). Fifty patients (33.6%) received additional ECMO support. On average, ECMO therapy was initiated 15.6 ± 9.4 days after symptom onset, 10.6 ± 7.1 days after hospital admission, and 4.8 ± 6.4 days after the start of IMV. Male sex and higher SOFA and RESP scores were observed significantly more often in the high-volume ECMO center. Pre-medication with antidepressants was more often detected in survivors (22.0% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.006). ECMO patients were 14 years younger and presented a lower rate of concomitant cardiovascular diseases (18.0% vs. 47.5%; p = 0.0004). Additionally, cytokine-adsorption (46.0% vs. 13.1%; p < 0.0001) and renal replacement therapy (76.0% vs. 43.4%; p = 0.0001) were carried out more frequently; in ECMO patients thrombocytes were transfused 12-fold more often related to more than fourfold higher bleeding complications. Undulating C-reactive protein (CRP) and massive increase in bilirubin levels (at terminal stage) could be observed in deceased ECMO patients. In-hospital mortality was high (Overall: 72.5%, ECMO: 80.0%, ns). Regardless of ECMO therapy half of the study population deceased within 30 days after hospital admission. Despite being younger and with less comorbidities ECMO therapy did not improve survival in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Undulating CRP levels, a massive increase of bilirubin level and a high use of cytokine-adsorption were associated with worse outcomes. In conclusion, ECMO support might be helpful in selected severe cases of COVID-19.

Intensive Care and Organ Support Related Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to generate estimates of mortality in patients with COVID-19 that required hospitalization, ICU admission, and organ support.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases was conducted up to December 31, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Previously peer-reviewed observational studies that reported ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-related mortality among greater than or equal to 100 individual patients.

DATA EXTRACTION

Random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled estimates of case fatality rates (CFRs) for in-hospital, ICU, MV, RRT, and ECMO-related mortality. ICU-related mortality was additionally analyzed by the study country of origin. Sensitivity analyses of CFR were assessed based on completeness of follow-up data, by year, and when only studies judged to be of high quality were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

One hundred fifty-seven studies evaluating 948,309 patients were included. The CFR for in-hospital mortality, ICU mortality, MV, RRT, and ECMO were 25.9% (95% CI: 24.0-27.8%), 37.3% (95% CI: 34.6-40.1%), 51.6% (95% CI: 46.1-57.0%), 66.1% (95% CI: 59.7-72.2%), and 58.0% (95% CI: 46.9-68.9%), respectively. MV (52.7%, 95% CI: 47.5-58.0% vs 31.3%, 95% CI: 16.1-48.9%; p = 0.023) and RRT-related mortality (66.7%, 95% CI: 60.1-73.0% vs 50.3%, 95% CI: 42.4-58.2%; p = 0.003) decreased from 2020 to 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

We present updated estimates of CFR for patients hospitalized and requiring intensive care for the management of COVID-19. Although mortality remain high and varies considerably worldwide, we found the CFR in patients supported with MV significantly improved since 2020.

Promoting self‐healing power and balancing immune response: a holistic, effective strategy of traditional Chinese medicine in treating COVID‐19

The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious challenge to human medicines. Modern medicine (MM) has been excellent in identifying the virus, sequencing its mutants, and monitoring the pandemic progress. However, due to lack of effective antivirals in the first two years of the pandemic, MM treated COVID-19 mainly by conventional supportive care with limited efficacy. In China, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been actively participating the control of COVID-19, and the combination of TCM and conventional supportive care has shown better efficacies than the conventional care alone. Purpose: Clinical studies have shown that TCM treats COVID-19 through a holistic action, such as repairing organ injuries, anti-inflammation, immunoregulation and antiviral activities, etc. However, it is not clear how TCM is able to achieve these effects, and the scientific interpretation of TCM theories is lacking. This review aims to elucidate the scientific basis underlying TCM theories in the context of host-pathogen interaction and provide a working model for TCM in treating infectious diseases. Procedure: This review focuses on the essential components of host-pathogen interaction and performs an in-depth analysis of current literatures, including TCM theories and clinical studies as well as the most recent findings of tolerance (self-healing) mechanism in biomedical sciences. Conclusion: TCM treats COVID-19 through a holistic regulation of host responses, particularly by promoting patients’ self-healing power and balancing immune responses. Compared to the pathogen-centered MM, the host-centered TCM doesn't require specific antivirals and has less side-effects and drug resistance. This review provides a scientific insight into the mechanism of TCM and sheds a light on the prospective integration of TCM and MM for future challenges.

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.