Trend of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in South Korea

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: unmet needs and perspectives

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) has become an essential lifesaving intervention for individuals with severe cardiovascular and respiratory failure. Its application is expanding across several therapeutic contexts, surpassing conventional indications. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly stressed worldwide health systems to manage acute respiratory failure. ECMO has been employed as a vital intervention, particularly for patients with severe COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). ECMO is applicable throughout pregnancy. The principal indications for ECMO in pregnant women align with those in the general population. However, pregnancy complicates issues, necessitating consideration of both mother's and infant's well-being. Patients with systemic rheumatic diseases are prone to experience life-threatening complications. While a majority of these patients respond to immunosuppressive drugs, a small percentage suffer organ failure and may benefit from ECMO as a bridge to recovery. The article addresses coagulation therapies, highlighting the necessity of precise anticoagulation to avert both bleeding and thrombosis, particularly in patients requiring extended ECMO support. Additionally, the pharmacokinetics of antibiotics in ECMO patients are summarized, including the influence of the ECMO circuit on drug metabolism. Survey-based research offers valuable insights into ECMO use, procedures, and challenges. The paper evaluates current survey-based research and ECMO guidelines, highlighting clinical practice, training, and resource availability discrepancies across ECMO centers globally. Particular focus is placed on the rehabilitation requirements of ECMO survivors, acknowledging the importance of early mobilization and post-discharge care in improving long-term outcomes and quality of life.

Health Disparities in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Utilization and Outcomes: A Scoping Review and Methodologic Critique of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

To map the scope, methodological rigor, quality, and direction of associations between social determinants of health (SDoH) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) utilization or outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for citations from January 2000 to January 2023, examining socioeconomic status (SES), race, ethnicity, hospital and ECMO program characteristics, transport, and geographic location (context) with utilization and outcomes (concept) in ECMO patients (population).

STUDY SELECTION

Methodology followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping review extension. Two reviewers independently evaluated abstracts and full text of identified publications. Exclusion criteria included non-English, unavailable, less than 40 patients, and periprocedural or mixed mechanical support.

DATA EXTRACTION

Content analysis used a standardized data extraction tool and inductive thematic analysis for author-proposed mediators of disparities. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 8,214 citations screened, 219 studies were identified. Primary analysis focuses on 148 (68%) including race/ethnicity/SES/payer variables including investigation of ECMO outcomes 114 (77%) and utilization 43 (29%). SDoH were the primary predictor in 15 (10%). Overall quality and methodologic rigor was poor with advanced statistics in 7%. Direction of associations between ECMO outcomes or utilization according to race, ethnicity, SES, or payer varied. In 38% adverse outcomes or lower use was reported in underrepresented, under-resourced or diverse populations, while improved outcomes or greater use were observed in these populations in 7%, and 55% had no statistically significant result. Only 26 studies (18%) discussed mechanistic drivers of disparities, primarily focusing on individual- and hospital-level rather than systemic/structural factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations between ECMO utilization and outcomes with SDoH are inconsistent, complicated by population heterogeneity and analytic shortcomings with limited consideration of systemic contributors. Findings and research gaps have implications for measuring, analyzing, and interpreting SDoH in ECMO research and healthcare.

Expert consensus statement on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO for COVID-19 severe ARDS: an international Delphi study

BACKGROUND

The 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.

OBJECTIVES

To 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.

METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

In 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.

CONCLUSION

Three 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.