Project description:Systemic inflammation is a key characteristic of sepsis but also also in non-infectious conditions such as post-cardiac arrest syndrome. Cytokine adsorption and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are emerging therapies applied in these critically ill patients, but the experience with their concurrent use is limited. We evaluated cytokine adsorption in critically ill patients requiring support with either veno-venous (vv) or veno-arterial (va) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support and hypothesized that adsorber incorporation into the ECMO circuit was technically feasible and not associated with imminent risk. We analyzed data from the first six cases of a prospective single-center registry of patients undergoing veno-venous (vv) or veno-arterial (va) ECMO therapy. While in most published cases cytokine adsorbers were inserted into a hemofiltration circuit, we directly incorporated the adsorber into the ECMO circuit without interruption of continuous ECMO support. We observed no relevant side effects attributable to cytokine adsorption. Thirty-day mortality was 83% (predicted mortality 87%), indicating that the decision for adding cytokine adsorption may have been considered as an ultima ratio decision in severe cases with poor prognosis. Vasopressor or inotrope use, lactate level, and fluid balance did not change significantly when comparing pre- vs. post-cytokine adsorption values. Interestingly, the real-time course of the mentioned three surrogate parameters remained unaltered in all but two cases, regardless of cytokine removal. Beneficial effects of cytokine adsorption are plausible in two va-ECMO-treated patient, where increasing lactate began to drop after initiation of cytokine adsorption. Taken together, these data suggest that incorporation of cytokine adsorption into the management of critically ill patients requiring continued ECMO support is feasible and easy to handle. Whether cytokine removal improves clinical outcome in ECMO-treated patients should now be investigated in randomized controlled trials.

Project description:BackgroundECMO is a particularly scarce resource during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its allocation involves ethical considerations that may be different to usual times. There is limited pre-pandemic literature on the ethical factors that ECMO physicians consider during ECMO allocation. During the pandemic, there has been relatively little professional guidance specifically relating to ethics and ECMO allocation; although there has been active ethical debate about allocation of other critical care resources. We report the results of a small international exploratory survey of ECMO clinicians' views on different patient factors in ECMO decision-making prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then outline current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for rationing life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and examine the extent to which current guidelines for ECMO allocation (and reported practice) adhere to these ethical guidelines and recommendations.MethodsAn online survey was performed with responses recorded between mid May and mid August 2020. Participants (n = 48) were sourced from the ECMOCard study group-an international group of experts (n = 120) taking part in a prospective international study of ECMO and intensive care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey compared the extent to which certain ethical factors involved in ECMO resource allocation were considered prior to and during the pandemic.ResultsWhen initiating ECMO during the pandemic, compared to usual times, participants reported giving more ethical weight to the benefit of ECMO to other patients not yet admitted as opposed to those already receiving ECMO, (p < 0.001). If a full unit were referred a good candidate for ECMO, participants were more likely during the pandemic to consider discontinuing ECMO from a current patient with low chance of survival (53% during pandemic vs. 33% prior p = 0.002). If the clinical team recommends that ECMO should cease, but family do not agree, the majority of participants indicated that they would continue treatment, both in usual circumstances (67%) and during the pandemic (56%).ConclusionsWe found differences during the COVID-19 pandemic in prioritisation of several ethical factors in the context of ECMO allocation. The ethical principles prioritised by survey participants were largely consistent with ECMO allocation guidelines, current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for allocation of life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionThree 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.

Project description:SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), death and long-term sequelae. Innate immune cells are critical for host defense but are also the primary drivers of ARDS. The relationships between innate cellular responses in ARDS resulting from COVID-19 compared to other causes of ARDS, such as bacterial sepsis is unclear. Moreover, the beneficial effects of dexamethasone therapy during severe COVID-19 remain speculative, but understanding the mechanistic effects could improve evidence-based therapeutic interventions. To interrogate these relationships, we developed an scRNAseq atlas that is freely accessible (biernaskielab.ca/COVID_neutrophil). We discovered that compared to bacterial ARDS, COVID-19 was associated with distinct neutrophil polarization characterized by either interferon (IFN) or prostaglandin (PG) active states. Neutrophils from bacterial ARDS had higher expression of antibacterial molecules such as PLAC8 and CD83. Dexamethasone therapy in COVID patients rapidly altered the IFNactive state, downregulated interferon responsive genes, and activated IL1R2+ve neutrophils. Dexamethasone also induced the emergence of immature neutrophils expressing immunosuppressive molecules ARG1 and ANXA1, which were not present in healthy controls. Moreover, dexamethasone remodeled global cellular interactions by changing neutrophils from information receivers into information providers. Importantly, male patients had higher proportions of IFNactive neutrophils and a greater degree of steroid-induced immature neutrophil expansion. Indeed, the highest proportion of IFNactive neutrophils was associated with mortality. These results define neutrophil states unique to COVID-19 when contextualized to other life-threatening infections, thereby enhancing the relevance of our findings at the bedside. Furthermore, the molecular benefits of dexamethasone therapy are also defined. The identified molecular pathways can now be targeted to develop improved therapeutics.

Project description:BackgroundThis study compared the ventilatory variables and computed tomography (CT) features of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) versus those of patients with pulmonary non-COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during the early phase of ARDS.MethodsThis prospective, observational cohort study of ARDS patients in Taiwan was performed between February 2017 and June 2018 as well as between October 2020 and January 2024. Analysis was performed on clinical characteristics, including consecutive ventilatory variables during the first week after ARDS diagnosis. Analysis was also performed on CT scans obtained within one week after ARDS onset.ResultsA total of 222 ARDS patients were divided into a COVID-19 ARDS group (n = 44; 19.8%) and a non-COVID-19 group (all pulmonary origin) (n = 178; 80.2%). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of all-cause hospital mortality (38.6% versus 47.8%, p = 0.277). Pulmonary non-COVID-19 patients presented higher values for mechanical power (MP), MP normalized to predicted body weight (MP/PBW), MP normalized to compliance (MP/compliance), ventilatory ratio (VR), peak inspiratory pressure (Ppeak), and dynamic driving pressure (∆P) as well as lower dynamic compliance from day 1 to day 7 after ARDS onset. In both groups, non-survivors exceeded survivors and presented higher values for MP, MP/PBW, MP/compliance, VR, Ppeak, and dynamic ∆P with lower dynamic compliance from day 1 to day 7 after ARDS onset. The CT severity score for each of the five lung lobes and total CT scores were all significantly higher in the non-COVID-19 group (all p < 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression models revealed that Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was independently associated with mortality in the COVID-19 group. In the non-COVID-19 group, body mass index, immunocompromised status, SOFA score, MP/PBW and total CT severity scores were independently associated with mortality.ConclusionsIn the early course of ARDS, physicians should be aware of the distinctions between COVID-19-related ARDS and non-COVID-19-related ARDS in terms of ventilatory variables and CT imaging presentations. It is also important to tailor the mechanical ventilation settings according to these distinct subsets of ARDS.

Dataset Information

Cytokine adsorption during ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS.

Publications

Cytokine adsorption during ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets