ECMO in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To analyze the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and compare the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO to patients with influenza supported with ECMO.Design
A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of ECMO as supportive therapy of COVID-19.Setting
The authors performed a search through the Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE/PubMed databases from inception to February 19, 2021, for studies reporting hospitalized patients with COVID-19 managed with ECMO.Participants
A total of 134 studies were selected, including 6 eligible for the comparative meta-analysis of COVID-19 versus influenza.Interventions
The authors pooled the risk ratio and random effects model.Measurements and main results
The primary endpoint was the overall mortality of patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. Of the total number of 58,472 patients with COVID-19 reported, ECMO was used in 4,044 patients. The analysis suggested an overall in-hospital mortality of 39% (95% CI 0.34-0.43). In the comparative analysis, patients with COVID-19 on ECMO had a higher risk ratio (RR) for mortality when compared to influenza patients on ECMO: 72/164 (44%) v 71/186 (38%) RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.05-1.71; p = 0.03.Conclusions
ECMO could be beneficial in patients with COVID-19, according to the authors' meta-analysis. The reported mortality rate was 39%. This systematic analysis can provide clinical advice in the current era and ongoing pandemic.
SUBMITTER: Bertini P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8585556 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
ECMO in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Bertini Pietro P Guarracino Fabio F Falcone Marco M Nardelli Pasquale P Landoni Giovanni G Nocci Matteo M Paternoster Gianluca G
Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 20211112 8 Pt A
<h4>Objective</h4>To analyze the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and compare the survival rates of patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO to patients with influenza supported with ECMO.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of ECMO as supportive therapy of COVID-19.<h4>Setting</h4>The authors performed a search through the Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE/PubMed databases from inception to Febr ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory disease (ARDS) increasingly receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. While ECMO has been shown to increase risk of stroke, few studies have examined this association in COVID-19 patients.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review to characterise neurological events during ECMO support in COVID-19 patients.DesignSystematic review of cohort and large case series of COVID-19 patients who received ECMO support.Data sourcesStudies retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRχiv from inception to November 11, 2020.Eligibility criteriaInclusion criteria were a) Adult population (>18 year old); b) Positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 with active COVID-19 disease; c) ECMO therapy due to COVID-19 ARDS; and d) Neurological events and outcome described while on ECMO support. We excluded articles when no details of neurologic events were available.Results1,322 patients from 12 case series and retrospective cohort studies were included in our study. The median age was 49.2, and 75% (n=985) of the patients were male. Diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia were the most common comorbidities (24% and 20%, respectively). Most (95%, n=1,241) patients were on venovenous ECMO with a median P:F ratio at the time of ECMO cannulation of 69.1. The prevalence of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), ischaemic stroke, and hypoxic ischaemic brain injury (HIBI) was 5.9% (n=78), 1.1% (n=15), and 0.3% (n=4), respectively. The overall mortality of the 1,296 ECMO patients in the 10 studies that reported death was 36% (n=477), and the mortality of the subset of patients who had a neurological event was 92%.ConclusionsNeurological injury is a concern for COVID-19 patients who receive ECMO. Further research is required to explore how neuromonitoring protocols can inform tailored anticoagulation management and improve survival in COVID-19 patients with ECMO support.
| S-EPMC8553269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsPubMed, 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.ResultsOut 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.ConclusionThere 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.
| S-EPMC10856383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: There is no clear consensus on the clinical course of critical COVID-19 patients. We examined the clinical course among intubated survivors, non-survivors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients to reveal the standard clinical course and the difference among critical COVID-19 patients. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for original studies published until December 11, 2020, including case accumulation and clinical course reporting. Pregnant patients and children were excluded. We followed PRISMA guidelines and registered them with PROSPERO (CRD42021235534). Results: Of the 11,716 studies identified, 94 met the selection criteria, and 2,549 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The times from intubation to extubation and death were 12.07 days (95% confidence interval 9.80-14.33 days) and 10.14 days (8.18-12.10 days), respectively, and the ECMO duration was 14.72 days (10.57-18.87 days). The time from symptom onset to hospitalization (prehospitalization period) of intubated survivors, non-survivors, and ECMO patients was 6.15 (4.61-7.69 days), 6.45 (4.55-8.34 days), and 7.15 days (6.48-7.81 days), and that from symptom onset to intubation (preintubation period) was 8.58 (7.36-9.80 days), 9.14 (7.26-11.01 days), and 10.54 days (9.18-11.90 days), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the time from intubation to extubation and death was longer in the US and Europe than in East Asia. Conclusion: For COVID-19, we hypothesize that prehospitalization and preintubation periods are longer in intubated non-survivors and ECMO patients than in intubated survivors. These periods may serve as a predictor of disease severity or death and support therapeutic strategy determination.
| S-EPMC8554002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere trauma can result in cardiorespiratory failure, and when conventional treatment is ineffective, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can serve as an adjunctive therapy. However, the indications for ECMO in trauma cases are uncertain and clinical outcomes are variable. This study sought to describe the prognosis of adult trauma patients requiring ECMO, aiming to inform clinical decision-making and future research.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted on Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases until March 13, 2023, encompassing relevant studies involving over 5 trauma patients (aged ≥ 16 years) requiring ECMO support. The primary outcome measure was survival until discharge, with secondary measures including length of stay in the ICU and hospital, ECMO duration, and complications during ECMO. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to analyze these outcomes. The study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, while the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe meta-analysis comprised 36 observational studies encompassing 1822 patients. The pooled survival rate was 65.9% (95% CI 61.3-70.5%). Specifically, studies focusing on traumatic brain injury (TBI) (16 studies, 383 patients) reported a survival rate of 66.1% (95% CI 55.4-76.2%), while studies non-TBI (15 studies, 262 patients) reported a survival rate of 68.1% (95% CI 56.9-78.5%). No significant difference was observed between these two survival comparisons (p = 0.623). Notably, studies utilizing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) (15 studies, 39.0%, 95% CI 23.3-55.6%) demonstrated significantly lower survival rates than those using venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) (23 studies, 72.3%, 95% CI 63.2-80.7%, p < 0.001). The graded assessment of evidence provided a high degree of certainty regarding the pooled survival.ConclusionsECMO is now considered beneficial for severely traumatized patients, improving prognosis and serving as a valuable tool in managing trauma-related severe cardiorespiratory failure, haemorrhagic shock, and cardiac arrest.
| S-EPMC10563315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported to affect the gastrointestinal system with a variety of symptoms, including bleeding. The prevalence of bleeding in these patients remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis is to estimate the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding in COVID-19 patients and its association with mortality. MEDLINE and Embase were searched through December 20, 2020. Studies reporting COVID-19 patients with and without gastrointestinal bleeding were included. Estimated prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was pooled; heterogeneity was expressed as I 2. Metaregression analysis was performed to assess the impact of confounding covariates. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. A total of 91887 COVID-19 patients were considered, of whom 534 reported gastrointestinal bleeding (0.6%) [409 (76.6%) upper and 121 (22.7%) lower gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB and LGIB, resp.)]. The overall pooled gastrointestinal bleeding rate was 5% [95% CI 2-8], with high heterogeneity (I 2 99.2%); "small study effect" was observed using the Egger test (p=0.049). After removing two outlier studies, the pooled bleeding rate was 2% [95% CI 0-4], with high heterogeneity (I 2 99.2%), and no "small study effect" (p=0.257). The pooled UGIB rate was 1% (95% CI 0-3, I 2 98.6%, p=0.214), whereas the pooled LGIB rate was 1% (95% CI 0-2, I 2 64.7%, p=0.919). Metaregression analysis showed that overall estimates on gastrointestinal bleeding were affected by studies reporting different sources of bleeding. No significant association between gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality was found. In this meta-analysis of published studies, individuals with COVID-19 were found to be at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, especially upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
| S-EPMC8429023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity is common in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The effects of obesity on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 warrant systematical investigation.ObjectiveThis study explores the effects of obesity with the risk of severe disease among patients with COVID-19.MethodsBody mass index (BMI) and degree of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) accumulation were used as indicators for obesity status. Publication databases including preprints were searched up to August 10, 2020. Clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 included hospitalization, a requirement for treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and mortality. Risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes are presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for cohort studies with BMI-defined obesity, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95%CI for controlled studies with VAT-defined excessive adiposity.ResultsA total of 45, 650 participants from 30 studies with BMI-defined obesity and 3 controlled studies with VAT-defined adiposity were included for assessing the risk of severe COVID-19. Univariate analyses showed significantly higher ORs of severe COVID-19 with higher BMI: 1.76 (95%: 1.21, 2.56, P = 0.003) for hospitalization, 1.67 (95%CI: 1.26, 2.21, P<0.001) for ICU admission, 2.19 (95%CI: 1.56, 3.07, P<0.001) for IMV requirement, and 1.37 (95%CI: 1.06, 1.75, P = 0.014) for death, giving an overall OR for severe COVID-19 of 1.67 (95%CI: 1.43, 1.96; P<0.001). Multivariate analyses revealed increased ORs of severe COVID-19 associated with higher BMI: 2.36 (95%CI: 1.37, 4.07, P = 0.002) for hospitalization, 2.32 (95%CI: 1.38, 3.90, P = 0.001) for requiring ICU admission, 2.63 (95%CI: 1.32, 5.25, P = 0.006) for IMV support, and 1.49 (95%CI: 1.20, 1.85, P<0.001) for mortality, giving an overall OR for severe COVID-19 of 2.09 (95%CI: 1.67, 2.62; P<0.001). Compared to non-severe COVID-19 patients, severe COVID-19 cases showed significantly higher VAT accumulation with a SMD of 0.49 for hospitalization (95% CI: 0.11, 0.87; P = 0.011), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.81; P<0.001) for requiring ICU admission and 0.37 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.71; P = 0.035) for IMV support. The overall SMD for severe COVID-19 was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.68; P<0.001).ConclusionsObesity increases risk for hospitalization, ICU admission, IMV requirement and death among patients with COVID-19. Further, excessive visceral adiposity appears to be associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for effective actions by individuals, the public and governments to increase awareness of the risks resulting from obesity and how these are heightened in the current global pandemic.
| S-EPMC7521361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 patients frequently exhibit coagulation abnormalities and thrombotic events. In this meta-analysis, we investigated the association between coagulopathy and the severity of COVID-19 illness. Using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, WanFang Database, CNKI, and medRxiv, a systematic literature search was conducted for studies published between December 1, 2019 and May 1, 2020. We then analyzed coagulation parameters in COVID-19 patients exhibiting less severe and more severe symptoms. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata14.0 software. A total of 3,952 confirmed COVID-19 patients from 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with severe symptoms exhibited higher levels of D-dimer, prothrombin time (PT), and fibrinogen (FIB) than patients with less severe symptoms (SMD 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97, I2 56.9%; SMD 0.39, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64, I2 79.4%; and SMD 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.53, I2 42.4%, respectively). However, platelet and activated partial thromboplastin times did not differ (SMD -0.26, 95% CI: -0.56-0.05, I2 82.2%; and SMD -0.14, 95% CI: -0.45-0.18, I2 75.7%, respectively). These findings demonstrate that hypercoagulable coagulopathy is associated with the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and that D-dimer, PT, and FIB values are the main parameters that should be considered when evaluating coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7803569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) may complicate the course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence of VTE in patients with COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched up to 24th June 2020 for studies that evaluated the incidence of VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals (PI) were calculated by random-effect meta-analysis.Results3487 patients from 30 studies were included. Based on very low-quality evidence due to heterogeneity and risk of bias, the incidence of VTE was 26% (95% PI, 6%-66%). PE with or without DVT occurred in 12% of patients (95% PI, 2%-46%) and DVT alone in 14% (95% PI, 1%-75%). Studies using standard algorithms for clinically suspected VTE reported PE in 13% of patients (95% PI, 2%-57%) and DVT in 6% (95% PI, 0%-60%), compared to 11% (95% PI, 2%-46%) and 24% (95% PI, 2%-85%) in studies using other diagnostic strategies or patient sampling. In patients admitted to intensive care units, VTE occurred in 24% (95% PI, 5%-66%), PE in 19% (95% PI, 6%-47%), and DVT alone in 7% (95% PI, 0%-69%). Corresponding values in general wards were respectively 9% (95% PI, 0%-94%), 4% (95% PI, 0%-100%), and 7% (95% CI, 1%-49%).ConclusionsVTE represents a frequent complication in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and often occurs as PE. The threshold for clinical suspicion should be low to trigger prompt diagnostic testing.
| S-EPMC7420982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A systematic review and meta-analysis of the entire COVID-19 Tracheostomy cohort was conducted to determine the cumulative incidence of complications, mortality, time to decannulation and ventilatory weaning. Outcomes of surgical versus percutaneous and outcomes relative to tracheostomy timing were also analysed. Studies reporting outcome data on patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy were identified and screened by 2 independent reviewers. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Outcome data were analysed using a random-effects model. From 1016 unique studies, 39 articles reporting outcomes for a total of 3929 patients were included for meta-analysis. Weighted mean follow-up time was 42.03±26 days post-tracheostomy. Meta-analysis showed that 61.2% of patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation [95%CI 52.6%-69.5%], 44.2% of patients were decannulated [95%CI 33.96%-54.67%], and cumulative mortality was found to be 19.23% [95%CI 15.2%-23.6%] across the entire tracheostomy cohort. The cumulative incidence of complications was 14.24% [95%CI 9.6%-19.6%], with bleeding accounting for 52% of all complications. No difference was found in incidence of mortality (RR1.96; p=0.34), decannulation (RR1.35, p=0.27), complications (RR0.75, p=0.09) and time to decannulation (SMD 0.46, p=0.68) between percutaneous and surgical tracheostomy. Moreover, no difference was found in mortality (RR1.57, p=0.43) between early and late tracheostomy, and timing of tracheostomy did not predict time to decannulation. Ten confirmed nosocomial staff infections were reported from 1398 tracheostomies. This study provides an overview of outcomes of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients, and contributes to our understanding of tracheostomy decisions in this patient cohort.
| S-EPMC8130586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAzithromycin has been widely used in the management of COVID-19. However, the evidence on its actual effects remains disperse and difficult to apply in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence to date on the beneficial and adverse effects of azithromycin in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PRISMA 2020 statement criteria were followed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with and without azithromycin, indexed until 5 July 2021, were searched in PubMed, Embase, The Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MedRXivs. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled effect size from aggregate data.ResultsThe initial search produced 4950 results. Finally, 16 studies, 5 RCTs and 11 with an observational design, with a total of 22 984 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for those treated with or without azithromycin, in observational studies [OR: 0.90 (0.66-1.24)], RCTs [OR: 0.97 (0.87-1.08)] and also when both types of studies were pooled together [with an overall OR: 0.95 (0.79-1.13)]. Different individual studies also reported no significant difference for those treated with or without azithromycin in need for hospital admission or time to admission from ambulatory settings, clinical severity, need for intensive care, or adverse effects.ConclusionsThe results presented in this systematic review do not support the use of azithromycin in the management of COVID-19. Future research on treatment for patients with COVID-19 may need to focus on other drugs.
| S-EPMC8690025 | biostudies-literature