Dataset Information

Comparative Propensity Matched Outcomes in Severe COVID-19 Respiratory Failure-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation or Maximum Ventilation Alone.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Does extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) improve outcomes in ECMO-eligible patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure compared to maximum ventilation alone (MVA)?

Summary background data

ECMO is beneficial in severe cases of respiratory failure when mechanical ventilation is inadequate. Outcomes for ECMO-eligible COVID-19 patients on MVA have not been reported. Consequently, a direct comparison between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and those on MVA has not been established.

Methods

A total of 3406 COVID-19 patients treated at two major medical centers in Chicago were studied. One hundred ninety-five required maximum ventilatory support, and met ECMO eligibility criteria. Eighty ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients using detailed demographic, physiological, and comorbidity data. Primary outcome was survival and disposition at discharge.

Results

Seventy-one percent of patients were decannulated from ECMO. Mechanical ventilation was discontinued in 75% ECMO and 16% MVA patients. Twenty-five percent of patients in the ECMO arm expired, 21% while on ECMO, compared with 74% in the MVA cohort. Mortality was significantly lower across all age and BMI groups in the ECMO arm. Sixty-eight percent ECMO and 26% MVA patients were discharged from the hospital. Fewer ECMO patients required long-term rehabilitation. Major complications such as septic shock, ventilator associated pneumonia, inotropic requirements, acute liver and kidney injuries are less frequent among ECMO patients.

Conclusions

ECMO-eligible patients with severe COVID-19 respiratory failure demonstrate a 3-fold improvement in survival with ECMO. They are also in a better physical state at discharge and have lower overall complication rates. As such, strong consideration should be given for ECMO when mechanical ventilatory support alone becomes insufficient in treating COVID-19 respiratory failure.

SUBMITTER: Mustafa AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8500214 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To describe ventilation strategies used during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for neonatal respiratory failure among level IV neonatal ICUs (NICUs).DesignCross-sectional electronic survey.SettingEmail-based Research Electronic Data Capture survey.PatientsNeonates undergoing ECMO for respiratory failure at level IV NICUs.InterventionsA 40-question survey was sent to site sponsors of regional referral neonatal ECMO centers participating in the Children's Hospitals Neonatal Consortium. Reminder emails were sent at 2- and 4-week intervals.Measurements and main resultsTwenty ECMO centers responded to the survey. Most primarily use venoarterial ECMO (65%); this percentage is higher (90%) for congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Sixty-five percent reported following protocol-based guidelines, with neonatologists primarily responsible for ventilator management (80%). The primary mode of ventilation was pressure control (90%), with synchronized intermittent mechanical ventilation (SIMV) comprising 80%. Common settings included peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) of 16-20 cm H2O (55%), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 9-10 cm H2O (40%), I-time 0.5 seconds (55%), rate of 10-15 (60%), and Fio2 22-30% (65%). A minority of sites use high-frequency ventilation (HFV) as the primary mode (5%). During ECMO, 55% of sites target some degree of lung aeration to avoid complete atelectasis. Fifty-five percent discontinue inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) during ECMO, while 60% use iNO when trialing off ECMO. Nonventilator practices to facilitate decannulation include bronchoscopy (50%), exogenous surfactant (25%), and noninhaled pulmonary vasodilators (50%). Common ventilator thresholds for decannulation include PEEP of 6-7 (45%), PIP of 21-25 (55%), and tidal volume 5-5.9 mL/kg (50%).ConclusionsThe majority of level IV NICUs follow internal protocols for ventilator management during neonatal respiratory ECMO, and neonatologists primarily direct management in the NICU. While most centers use pressure-controlled SIMV, there is considerable variability in the range of settings used, with few centers using HFV primarily. Future studies should focus on identifying respiratory management practices that improve outcomes for neonatal ECMO patients.

Project description:BackgroundIn patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Materials and methodsAll 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13th, 2020, to July 31st, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality.ResultsA total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); p=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); p < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; p < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; p=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups.ConclusionECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.