Respiratory indications for ECMO: focus on COVID-19

Comparative outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 delivered in experienced European centres during successive SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaks (ECMO-SURGES): an international, multicentre, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To inform future research and practice, we aimed to investigate the outcomes of patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to different variants of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who received ECMO for ARDS in 21 experienced ECMO centres in eight European countries (Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) between Jan 1, 2020, and Sept 30, 2021. We collected data on patient characteristics, clinical status, and management before and after the initiation of ECMO. Participants were grouped according to SARS-CoV-2 variant (wild type, alpha, delta, or other) and period of the pandemic (first [Jan 1-June 30] and second [July 1-Dec 31] semesters of 2020, and first [Jan 1-June 30] and second [July 1-Sept 30] semesters of 2021). Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyse evolving characteristics, management, and patient outcomes over the first 2 years of the pandemic, and independent risk factors of mortality were determined using multivariable Cox regression models. The primary outcome was mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO, with follow-up to Dec 30, 2021.

FINDINGS

ECMO was initiated in 1345 patients. Patient characteristics and management were similar for the groups of patients infected with different variants, except that those with the delta variant had a younger median age and less hypertension and diabetes. 90-day mortality was 42% (569 of 1345 patients died) overall, and 43% (297/686) in patients infected with wild-type SARS-CoV-2, 39% (152/391) in those with the alpha variant, 40% (78/195) in those with the delta variant, and 58% (42/73) in patients infected with other variants (mainly beta and gamma). Mortality was 10% higher (50%) in the second semester of 2020, when the wild-type variant was still prevailing, than in other semesters (40%). Independent predictors of mortality were age, immunocompromised status, a longer time from intensive care unit admission to intubation, need for renal replacement therapy, and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment haemodynamic component score, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide, and lactate concentration before ECMO. After adjusting for these variables, mortality was significantly higher with the delta variant than with the other variants, the wild-type strain being the reference.

INTERPRETATION

Although crude mortality did not differ between variants, adjusted risk of death was highest for patients treated with ECMO infected with the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. The higher virulence and poorer outcomes associated with the delta strain might relate to higher viral load and increased inflammatory response syndrome in infected patients, reinforcing the need for a higher rate of vaccination in the population and updated selection criteria for ECMO, should a new and highly virulent strain of SARS-CoV-2 emerge in the future. Mortality was noticeably lower than in other large, multicentre series of patients who received ECMO for COVID-19, highlighting the need to concentrate resources at experienced centres.

FUNDING

None.

The Year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2022

This special article is the 15th in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief Dr. Kaplan and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series, namely the research highlights of the past year in the specialties of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiology. The major themes selected for 2022 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights, in the specialties for 2022, begin with an update on COVID-19 therapies, with a focus on the temporal updates in a wide range of therapies, progressing from medical to the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and, ultimately, with lung transplantation in this high-risk group. The second major theme is focused on medical cardiology, with the authors discussing new insights into the life cycle of coronary disease, heart failure treatments, and outcomes related to novel statin therapy. The third theme is focused on mechanical circulatory support, with discussions focusing on both right-sided and left-sided temporary support outcomes and the optimal timing of deployment. The fourth and final theme is an update on cardiac surgery, with a discussion of the diverse aspects of concomitant valvular surgery and the optimal approach to procedural treatment for coronary artery disease. The themes selected for this 15th special article are only a few of the diverse advances in the specialties during 2022. These highlights will inform the reader of key updates on a variety of topics, leading to the improvement of perioperative outcomes for patients with cardiothoracic and vascular disease.

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.

The effect of recombinant versus plasma-derived von Willebrand factor on prolonged PFA closure times in ECMO patients with acquired von Willebrand syndrome - an observational study

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is applied in patients with respiratory or cardiopulmonary failure, but bleeding is a frequent complication contributing to the high mortality rates in this patient collective. A major factor predisposing patients to bleeding events is an acquired von Willebrand syndrome (aVWS). So far, specific treatment options for this phenomenon are lacking. In hereditary von Willebrand disease (VWD), treatment with recombinant or plasma-derived von Willebrand factor (rVWF or pVWF) is common practice. Closure time measured by the Platelet Function Analyser-200 (PFA-200) is an established assay to detect defects in primary hemostasis and the method is useful to monitor the effect of hemostatic therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of recombinant (rVWF) vs. plasma-derived von Willebrand factor (pVWF) on closure times measured by PFA in blood obtained from ECMO patients with aVWS.

METHODS

Blood was sampled from thirteen patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and three patients with hereditary VWD. Diagnosis of aVWS was made by conventional coagulation parameters and by multimeric structure analysis. PFA analysis of blood spiked with rVWF or pVWF was performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients receiving ECMO were recruited. Ten patients survived and three patients suffered major bleeding complications. PFA closure times in ECMO patients with aVWS spiked with rVWF were significantly shorter at all concentrations than with pVWF (e.g., rVWF vs. pVWF: 1 U/ml: 150.4 ± 21.7 s vs. 263.8 ± 11.7 s; 4 U/ml: 97.8 ± 9.8 s vs. 195.8 ± 15.4 s, p<0.001). PFA closure times were also significantly shorter in three patients with hereditary VWD treated with rVWF compared to pVWF (e.g., 1 U/ml rVWF vs. pVWF: 73.7±1.33 s vs. 231.3±43.4 s, p<0.01) CONCLUSION: In summary, this study shows that rVWF compared to pVWF more effectively reduced PFA closures times in blood samples of ECMO patients with aVWS. Higher doses of VWF are needed to normalize PFA closure time in blood samples of patients with ECMO-induced aVWS compared to hereditary VWD. These data support the use of PFA-200 to monitor hemostatic effects in a future clinical trial involving ECMO patients with aVWS.

Use of volatile anesthetics for sedation in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey in France (VOL'ICU 2 study)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the number of patients in ICUs leading to a worldwide shortage of the intravenous sedative agents obligating physicians to find alternatives including inhaled sedation. Inhaled sedation in French ICU has been previously explored in 2019 (VOL'ICU study). This survey was designed to explore the use of inhaled sedation two years after our first survey and to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the use of inhaled sedation.

METHODS

We designed a national survey, contacting medical directors of French ICUs between June and October 2021. Over a 50-item questionnaire, the survey covered the characteristics of the ICU, data on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled ICU sedation for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Answers were compared with the previous survey, VOL'ICU.

RESULTS

Among the 405 ICUs contacted, 25% of the questionnaires were recorded. Most ICU directors (87%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 63% of them have an inhaled sedation's device in their unit. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of inhaled sedation in French ICUs. The main reasons said by the respondent were "need for additional sedative" (62%), "shortage of intravenous sedatives" (38%) and "involved in a clinical trial" (30%). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were "device not available" (76%), "lack of familiarity" (60%) and "no training for the teams" (58%). More than 70% of respondents were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 80% of respondents stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation for management of COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of inhaled sedation in ICU has increased fastly in the last 2 years, and is frequently associated with a good satisfaction among the users. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic could have impacted the widespread use of inhaled sedation, it represents an alternative to intravenous sedation for more and more physicians.