In-hospital and 6-month outcomes in patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (EuroECMO-COVID): a multicentre, prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been widely used in patients with COVID-19, but uncertainty remains about the determinants of in-hospital mortality and data on post-discharge outcomes are scarce. The aims of this study were to investigate the variables associated with in-hospital outcomes in patients who received ECMO during the first wave of COVID-19 and to describe the status of patients 6 months after ECMO initiation.

METHODS

EuroECMO-COVID is a prospective, multicentre, observational study developed by the European Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. This study was based on data from patients aged 16 years or older who received ECMO support for refractory COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic-from March 1 to Sept 13, 2020-at 133 centres in 21 countries. In-hospital mortality and mortality 6 months after ECMO initiation were the primary outcomes. Mixed-Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate associations between patient and management-related variables (eg, patient demographics, comorbidities, pre-ECMO status, and ECMO characteristics and complications) and in-hospital deaths. Survival status at 6 months was established through patient contact or institutional charts review. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04366921, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between March 1 and Sept 13, 2020, 1215 patients (942 [78%] men and 267 [22%] women; median age 53 years [IQR 46-60]) were included in the study. Median ECMO duration was 15 days (IQR 8-27). 602 (50%) of 1215 patients died in hospital, and 852 (74%) patients had at least one complication. Multiorgan failure was the leading cause of death (192 [36%] of 528 patients who died with available data). In mixed-Cox analyses, age of 60 years or older, use of inotropes and vasopressors before ECMO initiation, chronic renal failure, and time from intubation to ECMO initiation of 4 days or more were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. 613 patients did not die in hospital, and 547 (95%) of 577 patients for whom data were available were alive at 6 months. 102 (24%) of 431 patients had returned to full-time work at 6 months, and 57 (13%) of 428 patients had returned to part-time work. At 6 months, respiratory rehabilitation was required in 88 (17%) of 522 patients with available data, and the most common residual symptoms included dyspnoea (185 [35%] of 523 patients) and cardiac (52 [10%] of 514 patients) or neurocognitive (66 [13%] of 512 patients) symptoms.

INTERPRETATION

Patient's age, timing of cannulation (<4 days vs ≥4 days from intubation), and use of inotropes and vasopressors are essential factors to consider when analysing the outcomes of patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19. Despite post-discharge survival being favourable, persisting long-term symptoms suggest that dedicated post-ECMO follow-up programmes are required.

FUNDING

None.

Impact of temporary mechanical circulatory support on mortality in cardiogenic shock: an emulated target trial with a prospective, multicenter, French cohort study

Background

The field of temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) has advanced in last decade justifying that TMCS is increasingly used for treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Nevertheless, the efficacy of TMCS (extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and Impella) in CS remains controversial due to the lack of high-quality evidence. The aim of this prospective multicenter observational study simulating a randomized trial was to assess the impact of TMCS on the hospital mortality in patients with CS.

Methods

This study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03528291) was conducted at 3 TMCS centers organized in a cardiac assistance network, one as a level 1 TMCS center (expert center), and 2 as level 2 centers (hub centers). The study was designed and led by the heart team of the expert center with input from the hub centers.

All patients admitted to an intensive care unit between July 2017 and May 2020 either directly at the TMCS centers or after transfer from a non-specialized hospital, were screened for TMCS indication provided they were admitted for CS. CS was defined according to the European Society of Cardiology criteria. Were excluded patients younger than 18 years, CS after cardiac surgery, or after cardiac arrest if it was refractory or with a no flow &gt;3 min and/or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythm, or CS in the context of myocardial infarction complications, massive pulmonary embolism, and if TMCS was contraindicated

TMCS indication was decided after a multidisciplinary discussion carried out by the “heart team”. Implantation of TMCS resulted from an agreement of the heart team within the first 24 hours after admission mainly based on the initial severity of the CS, or if CS was refractory to the medical treatment.

The primary outcome was in-hospital survival. A propensity score-weighted analysis was done for treatment-effect estimation. This method, which weights each patient according to their propensity score, includes all participants in the analysis.

Results

246 patients with CS were included in the study: 121 in TMCS group (72% ECLS, 14% Impella, 14% both ECLS and Impella) and 125 in control group. After adjustment by a propensity score, hospital mortality was comparable in the two groups (32% TMCS group vs 27% control group; Odds ratio with TMCS, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.88; p=0.21). Mortality at D180 was also similar in the two group (33% vs 30% respectively; p=0.51). Thromboembolic events were significantly higher in the TCMS group (14% vs 4%; p&lt;0.01) as well as the transfusion rate ((median (IQR); 4.0 (0.0; 9.0) vs 0.0 (0.0; 0.0); p&lt;0.01).

Conclusion

In our study, the use of TMCS does not seem to improve hospital survival in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thus, TMCS, which are iatrogenic side effects providers, should be reserved for the most severe patient and discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Flow chart