Clinical Characteristics, Complications and Outcomes of Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Related to COVID-19 or Influenza Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation-A Retrospective Cohort Study

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 in Indonesia: Lessons from the first wave

BACKGROUND

Indonesia's national response to COVID-19 evolved rapidly throughout 2020. Understanding pandemic response and outcomes is crucial for better mitigation strategies ahead. This study describes the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to ICU during the early stages of the pandemic.

METHODS

This is a multi-centre prospective observational study including patients from twelve collaborating hospitals in Indonesia. All patients were clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases admitted to ICU between January 2020 and March 2021. The primary outcome was monthly ICU mortality. Descriptive statistics of patient characteristics and treatment were generated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

From 559 subjects, the overall mortality was 68% and decreased over the study period, while the mortality of patients that received mechanical ventilation was 92%, consistently high over the study period. Fatal cases showed 2- and 4-day delays from symptoms onset to hospital admissions and ICU admissions, respectively. Evidence-backed approaches which could influence patient outcome, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone positioning, renal replacement therapy, and neuromuscular blockade were scarcely administered.

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality rate of COVID-19 patients in Indonesia was extremely high during the first major outbreak of disease, particularly in those mechanically ventilated. Delayed admission and unavailability of evidence-based approaches due to high burden on health facility during COVID-19 crisis could be addressed by efficient public health measures and enhancing health infrastructure to improve the future pandemic response.

Impact of COVID-19 on Sedation Requirements during Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

COVID-19-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is mentioned to express higher analgosedation needs, in comparison to ARDS of other etiologies. The objective of this monocentric retrospective cohort study was to compare the analgosedation needs between C-ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS (non-C-ARDS) on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). Data were collected from the electronic medical records of all adult patients treated with C-ARDS in our Department of Intensive Care Medicine between March 2020 and April 2022. The control group included patients treated with non-C-ARDS between the years 2009 and 2020. A sedation sum score was created in order to describe the overall analgosedation needs. A total of 115 (31.5%) patients with C-ARDS and 250 (68.5%) with non-C-ARDS requiring VV-ECMO therapy were included in the study. The sedation sum score was significantly higher in the C-ARDS group (p < 0.001). COVID-19 was significantly associated with analgosedation in the univariable analysis. By contrast, the multivariable model did not show a significant association between COVID-19 and the sum score. The year of VV-ECMO support, BMI, SAPS II and prone positioning were significantly associated with sedation needs. The potential impact of COVID-19 remains unclear, and further studies are warranted in order to evaluate specific disease characteristics linked with analgesia and sedation.

Differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between COVID-19 and influenza in critically ill adult patients: a national database study

OBJECTIVE

Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, influenza was the most frequent cause of viral respiratory pneumonia requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Few studies have compared the characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and influenza.

METHODS

This was a French nationwide study comparing COVID-19 (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2021) and influenza patients (January 1, 2014-December 31, 2019) admitted to an ICU during pre-vaccination era. Primary outcome was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome was need for mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

105,979 COVID-19 patients were compared to 18,763 influenza patients. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be men with more comorbidities. Patients with influenza required more invasive mechanical ventilation (47 vs. 34%, p<0·001), vasopressors (40% vs. 27, p<0·001) and renal-replacement therapy (22 vs. 7%, p<0·001). Hospital mortality was 25 and 21% (p<0·001) in patients with COVID-19 and influenza, respectively. In the subgroup of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay was significantly longer in patients with COVID-19 (18 [10-32] vs. 15 [8-26] days, p<0·001). Adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and modified SAPS II score, in-hospital death was higher in COVID-19 patients (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.69; 95%CI=1.63-1.75) compared with influenza patients. COVID-19 was also associated with less invasive mechanical ventilation (aSHR=0.87; 95%CI=0.85-0.89) and a higher likelihood of death without invasive mechanical ventilation (aSHR=2.40; 95%CI=2.24-2.57).

CONCLUSION

Despite younger age and lower SAPS II score, critically ill COVID-19 patients had a longer hospital stay and higher mortality than patients with influenza.

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

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

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Adult patients in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry.

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Use of CytoSorb© Hemoadsorption in Patients on Veno-Venous ECMO Support for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Adjunct hemoadsorption is increasingly utilized to target underlying hyperinflammation derived from ARDS. This article aims to review available data on the use of CytoSorb© therapy in combination with V-V ECMO in severe ARDS, and to assess the effects on inflammatory, laboratory and clinical parameters, as well as on patient outcomes. A systematic literature review was conducted and reported in compliance with principles derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. When applicable, a before-and-after analysis for relevant biomarkers and clinical parameters was carried out. CytoSorb© use was associated with significant reductions in circulating levels of C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 (p = 0.039 and p = 0.049, respectively). Increases in PaO2/FiO2 reached significance as well (p = 0.028), while norepinephrine dosage reductions showed a non-significant trend (p = 0.067). Mortality rates in CytoSorb© patients tended to be lower than those of control groups of most included studies, which, however, were characterized by high heterogeneity and low power. In an exploratory analysis on 90-day mortality in COVID-19 patients supported with V-V ECMO, the therapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death. Based on the reviewed data, CytoSorb© therapy is able to reduce inflammation and potentially improves survival in ARDS patients treated with V-V ECMO. Early initiation of CytoSorb© in conjunction with ECMO might offer a new approach to enhance lung rest and promote recovery in patients with severe ARDS.

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.

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.