Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis

From pandemic onset to present: five years of insights into ARDS caused by COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has challenged healthcare systems, initially resembling classical ARDS but later recognized as distinct. Unique features such as endothelial injury, microthrombosis, and dysregulated inflammation influenced treatment efficacy. Understanding its evolution is key to optimizing therapy and improving outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review synthesizes current evidence on COVID-19-associated ARDS, covering epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical phenotypes, and treatments. It explores the shift from L and H phenotypes to a refined disease model and highlights key therapies, including corticosteroids, immunomodulators, prone positioning, ECMO, and vaccination's impact on severity and ARDS incidence.

EXPERT OPINION

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2019, uncertainty was overwhelming. Early clinical guidelines relied on case reports and small case series, offering only preliminary insights into disease progression and management. Despite the initial chaos, the scientific community launched an unprecedented research effort, with over 11,000 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov investigating COVID-19 treatments. Several evidence-based strategies emerged as gold standards for managing COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, surpassing prior approaches. The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global healthcare, reshaped modern medicine, accelerated innovation, and reinforced the essential role of evidence-based practice in critical care and public health policy.

Lessons Learned From Awake ECMO Approach in Covid-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome - a Scoping Review

During the COVID-19 pandemic, specific COVID-19-related conditions renewed interest in the full-awake venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( fa V-V ECMO) approach, in which ECMO is applied to awake, cooperative, and non-intubated patients. This scoping review aims to provide a descriptive overview of fa V-V ECMO in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS). We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases using the keywords "awake ECMO" or "spontaneous breathing AND ECMO", combined with "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2" or "coronavirus", utilizing the Boolean operator "AND". The search included papers published from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Sixty-four papers were assessed for eligibility at the abstract level, and fourteen articles (seven small-sample cohort studies and seven case reports) comprising 95 patients were included in the final analysis. The most frequent reasons for preferring fa V-V ECMO over mechanical ventilation were barotrauma and patient refusal of intubation and mechanical ventilation. The fa V-V ECMO strategy was successful (ie, patients not intubated, disconnected from ECMO, and discharged from the hospital) in 36.4% of cases (cohort studies only). The incidence of defined severe adverse events (bleeding, thrombosis, cannula malposition, delirium, and progression of barotrauma) was considered low. The mortality rate for CARDS patients treated with fa V-V ECMO (including only patients from cohort studies) reached 33.0%, notably lower than the 48% reported for CARDS patients treated with V-V ECMO in the ELSO registry. Patients who were intubated due to worsening respiratory failure during fa V-V ECMO had significantly higher mortality. Infectious complications, sepsis, and multiorgan failure were the most frequent causes of death. However, significant heterogeneity in the definitions and reporting of management, ECMO-related complications, and outcomes was observed across the papers. Despite the heterogeneity of the data, fa V-V ECMO in CARDS patients can be considered a safe approach associated with a lower mortality rate than that reported in the overall V-V ECMO CARDS population.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to thoracic multiorgan transplantation

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged as a crucial tool in the care of patients with multiorgan failure and is increasingly utilized as a bridge to transplantation. While data on ECMO as a bridge to isolated heart and lung transplantation have been described, our emerging experience with ECMO as a bridge to thoracic multiorgan transplantation is not yet well understood.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify adult patients undergoing thoracic multiorgan transplantation between 1987 and 2022. Exclusion criteria were recipient age <18 and bridging with other non-ECMO mechanical circulatory support, Survival analysis was performed to compare outcomes between patients bridged to transplantation with ECMO and those who were not bridged.

RESULTS

Of 3,927 patients undergoing thoracic multiorgan transplantation, a total of 203 (5.2%) patients received ECMO as a bridge to transplantation. Among ECMO recipients, patients were most commonly bridged to heart-lung (45.8%), followed by heart-kidney (34.5%), and lung-kidney transplantation (11.8%). At a median follow-up of 35.5 months, unadjusted survival among patients bridged with ECMO was decreased versus multiorgan transplant recipients who were not bridged (p < 0.001). Among patients surviving past 30 days following transplantation, conditional long-term survival was similar between ECMO and non-ECMO patients (p = 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

ECMO is increasingly utilized as a bridge to thoracic multiorgan transplantation and is associated with increased 30 day mortality and decreased long-term survival. In select patients surviving to 30 days following transplantation, similar long-term survival is seen between patients bridged with ECMO and those not bridged.

Target trial emulation framework: mitigating methodological challenges and application in COVID-19 treatment evaluation studies

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, real-world data and observational studies played an important role in assessing treatment effectiveness. Methodological challenges such as immortal time bias, confounding, and competing risks were observed. Target trial emulation provides a structured framework for evaluating treatment effectiveness using observational data while mitigating these biases.

OBJECTIVES

To describe common biases in observational COVID-19 research, introduce the target trial emulation framework, and discuss how these biases can be addressed in this framework. Specifically, we discuss the clone-censor-weight approach and provide real-world study examples demonstrating its application in COVID-19 research.

SOURCES

We summarize key principles of target trial emulation and the clone-censor-weight approach using published methodological articles. Additionally, we demonstrate its practical implementation by reviewing three studies that emulated a target trial to evaluate the effects of treatments in COVID-19 patients. These studies were selected without a predefined search strategy.

CONTENT

We define and discuss immortal time bias, confounding, and competing risks in studies using observational data. To facilitate the understanding of these biases, we use a hypothetical example evaluating the effects of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We provide an overview of the target trial emulation framework and its core elements, explaining how it can mitigate these challenges. To illustrate the clone-censor-weight approach, we describe published examples demonstrating its application during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IMPLICATIONS

The target trial emulation is an important framework for evaluating treatment effects using observational data, but it requires careful implementation to mitigate methodological biases. Identifying and addressing confounding, immortal time bias, and competing risks during study design and analysis is important in any causal study evaluating treatment effects. This framework can improve the quality of observational studies and complement evidence from clinical trials, particularly when evidence is urgently needed, as during the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Advances in acute respiratory distress syndrome: focusing on heterogeneity, pathophysiology, and therapeutic strategies

In recent years, the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been gradually increasing. Despite advances in supportive care, ARDS remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. ARDS is characterized by acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with diffuse pulmonary inflammation and bilateral edema due to excessive alveolocapillary permeability in patients with non-cardiogenic pulmonary diseases. Over the past seven decades, our understanding of the pathology and clinical characteristics of ARDS has evolved significantly, yet it remains an area of active research and discovery. ARDS is highly heterogeneous, including diverse pathological causes, clinical presentations, and treatment responses, presenting a significant challenge for clinicians and researchers. In this review, we comprehensively discuss the latest advancements in ARDS research, focusing on its heterogeneity, pathophysiological mechanisms, and emerging therapeutic approaches, such as cellular therapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. Moreover, we also examine the pathological characteristics of COVID-19-related ARDS and discuss the corresponding therapeutic approaches. In the face of challenges posed by ARDS heterogeneity, recent advancements offer hope for improved patient outcomes. Further research is essential to translate these findings into effective clinical interventions and personalized treatment approaches for ARDS, ultimately leading to better outcomes for patients suffering from ARDS.

Level of sedation in patients with COVID-19 supported with ECMO: A comparative analysis of the critical care consortium international database

BACKGROUND

Liberation from sedation may be beneficial for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome supported by veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Currently, there is limited evidence to support this approach. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the 90-day patient mortality of different sedation strategies in COVID-19 patients supported with VV ECMO.

METHODS

Retrospective, observational sub-study of the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium database including COVID-19 patients supported with VV ECMO. Two cohorts were compared: high sedation patients who received neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) throughout ECMO and low sedation patients who did not receive NMBA consistently. Patients' level of sedation during ECMO was also considered. The primary outcome was 90-day in-hospital mortality and was assessed using cause-specific Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

224 low and 104 high sedation patients were included. Pre-ECMO respiratory condition prior was similar between groups, except for the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen, which was lower in the high sedation group at 93 [61-130] than the low sedation group at 106 [69-140]. No difference was observed in disease severity scores between cohorts. Low sedation patients had longer ECMO runs, more circuit changes, but lower infectious and hemorrhagic complications. Higher sedation was associated with a hazard ratio for death of 3.23 (95% CI 2.16-4.83) compared to low sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced sedation in COVID-19 ECMO patients is feasible and may be associated with improved survival and reduced complications compared to continuous paralysis, albeit with longer ECMO runs.

Outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review and meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been ongoing for over 3 years, during which numerous clinical and experimental studies have been conducted. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the survival probability and complications of COVID-19 patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

METHODS

We searched the databases by using Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome-Study Design (PICOS). We conducted a search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases to retrieve studies published until December 10, 2022. A random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and assessed the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score. The results were presented as pooled morbidity with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The study was conducted on 19 studies that enrolled a total of 1494 patients, and the results showed a pooled survival probability of 66.0%. The pooled morbidity for intracranial hemorrhage was 8.7%, intracranial thrombosis 7.0%, pneumothorax 9.0%, pulmonary embolism 11.0%, pulmonary hemorrhage 9.0%, heart failure 14.0%, liver failure 13.0%, renal injury 44.0%, gastrointestinal hemorrhage 6.0%, gastrointestinal ischemia 6.0% and venous thrombosis 31.0%.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies focused on the survival probability and complications of COVID-19 patients undergoing ECMO, which are significant in evaluating the use of ECMO in COVID-19 patients and provide a basis for further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022382555.

Extracorporeal Support for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has a long history in the management of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The objectives of this review are to summarize the rationale and evidence for ECLS in ARDS including its role in reducing ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), suggest best practice management strategies during ECLS, and identify areas that require additional research to better inform patient care.

Lessons Learned From Extracorporeal Life Support Practice and Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is increasingly being used to support patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock. During the COVID-19 pandemic, consensus guidance recommended extracorporeal life support for patients with COVID-19-related cardiopulmonary disease refractory to optimal conventional therapy, prompting a substantial expansion in the use of this support modality. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was particularly integral to the bridging of COVID-19 patients to heart or lung transplantation. Limited human and physical resources precluded widespread utilization of mechanical support during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating careful patient selection and optimal management by expert healthcare teams for judicious extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use. This review outlines the evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal life support in COVID-19, describes the practice and outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-related respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock, and proposes lessons learned for the implementation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transplantation in future public health emergencies.

Mapping a Decade (2014-2024) of Research on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Visual Analysis with CiteSpace and VOSviewer

Background

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) stands as a primary cause of mortality among critically ill patients. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly employed in the rescue therapy of ARDS patients. However, the current status of research in the field of ECMO-assisted ARDS remains unclear.

Objective

This research aims to categorize and evaluate the literature regarding Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) support for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), offering a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric properties, research hotspots, and developmental trends within the domain of ECMO-assisted ARDS.

Methods

A literature search was conducted for ECMO-assisted support for patients with ARDS in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database from 2014 to 2024. We employed visualization tools such as CiteSpace and VOSviewer to explore and assess connections among nations, institutions, researchers, and co-cited journals, authors, references, and keywords.

Results

This study included 1739 publications. The United States leads in publication volume with Columbia University at the forefront of ECMO research. Intensive Care Medicine has been identified as the most cited journal in this field. Alain Combes from France stands out as a key contributor, particularly in his 2018 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is the most cited work in the discipline. Furthermore, keyword analysis identified three distinct research phases: examining complications associated with ECMO therapy, exploring optimal strategies for mechanical ventilation under ECMO support, and compiling insights into the application of ECMO in treating COVID-19 patients and in the development of predictive models for patient outcomes.

Conclusion

Using bibliometric visualization techniques, this study revealed significant progress in the use of ECMO for treating ARDS respiratory support, evaluated the impact of these findings, and outlined potential areas for future studies.

Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was a cataclysmic event that infected over 772 million and killed over 6.9 million people worldwide. The pandemic pushed hospitals and society to their limits and resulted in incredibly severe respiratory disease in millions of people. This severe respiratory disease often necessitated maximum medical therapy, including the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. While our understanding of COVID-19 and its treatment continue to evolve, we review the current evidence to guide the care of patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

Interhospital Transfer of Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure in the United States: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Interhospital transfer of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is relevant in the current landscape of critical care delivery. However, current transfer practices for patients with ARF are highly variable, poorly formalized, and lack evidence. We aim to synthesize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and highlight persisting questions related to interhospital transfer of patients with ARF.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and American Psychological Association.

STUDY SELECTION

We included studies that evaluated or described hospital transfers of adult (age > 18) patients with ARF between January 2020 and 2024 conducted in the United States. Using predetermined search terms and strategies, a total of 3369 articles were found across all databases. After deduplication, 1748 abstracts were screened by authors with 45 articles that advanced to full-text review. This yielded 16 studies that fit our inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

The studies were reviewed in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews by three authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Included studies were mostly retrospective analyses of heterogeneous patients with various etiologies and severity of ARF. Overall, transferred patients were younger, had high severity of illness, and were more likely to have commercial insurance compared with nontransferred cohorts. There is a paucity of data examining why patients get transferred. Studies that retrospectively evaluated outcomes between transferred and nontransferred cohorts found no differences in mortality, although transferred patients have a longer length of stay. There is limited evidence to suggest that patients transferred early in their course have improved outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review highlights the sparse evidence and the urgent need for further research into understanding the complexity behind ARF transfers. Future studies should focus on defining best practices to inform clinical decision-making and improve downstream outcomes.

Respiratory extracorporeal membrane oxygenation : From rescue therapy to standard tool for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome?

BACKGROUND

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has increased substantially. With modern trials supporting its efficacy, ECMO has become an important tool in the management of severe ARDS.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this paper are to discuss ECMO physiology and configurations used for patients with ARDS, review evidence supporting the use of ECMO for ARDS, and discuss aspects of management during ECMO.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supports the use of ECMO, combined with an ultra-lung-protective approach to mechanical ventilation, in patients with ARDS who have refractory hypoxemia or hypercapnia with severe respiratory acidosis. Furthermore, data suggest that center volume and experience are important factors in the care of patients receiving ECMO. The use of extracorporeal technologies in expanded patient populations and the optimal management of patients during ECMO remain areas of investigation. This article is freely available.

ECMO is associated with decreased hospital mortality in COVID-19 ARDS

This study determined whether compared to conventional mechanical ventilation (MV), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with decreased hospital mortality or fibrotic changes in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. A cohort of 72 patients treated with ECMO and 390 with conventional MV were analyzed (February 2020-December 2021). A target trial was emulated comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs no ECMO within 7 days of MV in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 < 80 or a PaCO2 ≥ 60 mmHg. A total of 222 patients met the eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 42 initiated ECMO. ECMO was associated with a lower risk of hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.96). The risk was lower in patients who were younger (age < 70 years), had less comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index < 2), underwent prone positioning before ECMO, and had driving pressures ≥ 15 cmH2O at inclusion. Furthermore, ECMO was associated with a lower risk of fibrotic changes (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.11-0.70). However, the finding was limited due to relatively small number of patients and differences in observability between the ECMO and conventional MV groups.

Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation before Veno-Venous ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Covid-19 related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The experience of a tertiary care center

Background

Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an efficient ventilatory support in patients with refractory Covid-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), however the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) before ECMO initiation as a contraindication is still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of prolonged IMV prior to VV-ECMO in patients suffering from refractory Covid-19-related ARDS.

Methods

This single-center retrospective study included all patients treated with VV-ECMO for refractory Covid-19-related ARDS between January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2022. The impact of IMV duration was investigated by comparing patients on VV-ECMO during the 7 days (and 10 days) following IMV with those assisted after 7 days (and 10 days). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality.

Results

Sixty-four patients were hospitalized in the ICU for Covid-19-related refractory ARDS requiring VV-ECMO. Global in-hospital mortality was 55 %. Median duration of IMV was 4 [2; 8] days before VV-ECMO initiation. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients assisted with IMV pre-VV-ECMO for a duration of ≤7 days (≤10 days) and those assisted after 7 days (and 10 days) ((p = 0.59 and p = 0.45).

Conclusion

This study suggests that patients assisted with VV-ECMO after prolonged IMV had the same prognosis than those assisted earlier in refractory Covid-19-related ARDS. Therefore, prolonged mechanical ventilation of more than 7-10 days should not contraindicate VV-ECMO support. An individual approach is necessary to balance the risks and benefits of ECMO in this population.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 associated severe respiratory failure: Case series from a Hungarian tertiary centre

INTRODUCTION

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) is recommended for the support of patients with severe COVID-19 associated severe respiratory failure (SRF). We report the characteristics and outcome of COVID-19 patients supported with V-V ECMO in a Hungarian centre.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on all patients admitted with proven SARS CoV-2 infection who received V-V ECMO support between March 2021 and May 2022.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were placed on ECMO during this period, (5 women, age (mean ± SD) 44 ± 10 years, APACHE II score (median (interquartile range)) 12 (10-14.5)). Before ECMO support, they had been hospitalised for 6 (4-11) days. Fifteen patients received noninvasive ventilation for 4 (2-8) days, two patients had high flow nasal oxygen therapy, for one day each. They had already been intubated for 2.5 (1-6) days. Prone position was applied in 15 cases. On the day before ECMO initiation the Lung Injury Score was 3.25 (3-3.26), the PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 71 ± 19 mmHg. The duration of V-V ECMO support was 26 ± 20 days, and the longest run lasted 70 days. Patients were mechanically ventilated for 34 ± 23 days. The intensive care unit (ICU) and the hospital length of stay were 40 ± 28 days and 45 ± 31 days, respectively. Eleven patients were successfully weaned from ECMO. The ICU survival rate was 56%, the in-hospital survival was 50%. All patients who were discharged from hospital reported a good health-related quality of life Rankin score (0-2) at the 5-16 months follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

During the last three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved a 56% ICU and a 50% hospital survival rate at our low volume centre.

Right ventricular injury in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS eligible for ECMO support: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high mortality. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been proposed in this setting, but optimal criteria to select target patients remain unknown. Our hypothesis is that evaluation of right ventricular (RV) function could be helpful. The aims of our study were to report the incidence and outcomes of patients eligible for ECMO according to EOLIA criteria, and to identify a subgroup of patients with RV injury, which could be a target for ECMO.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study involving 3 French intensive care units (ICUs) of teaching hospitals. Patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 2020 and March 2021, presenting ARDS and with available echocardiography, were included. Patients were classified in three groups according to whether or not they met the EOLIA criteria and the presence of RV injury (RVI) ("EOLIA -", "EOLIA + RVI -" and "EOLIA + RVI + "). RVI was defined by the association of RV to left ventricular end-diastolic area ratio > 0.8 and paradoxical septal motion. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze outcome as well as a Cox model for 90 day mortality.

RESULTS

915 patients were hospitalized for COVID-19, 418 of them with ARDS. A total of 283 patients with available echocardiography were included. Eighteen (6.3%) patients received ECMO. After exclusion of these patients, 107 (40.5%) were classified as EOLIA -, 126 (47.5%) as EOLIA + RVI -, and 32 (12%) as EOLIA + RVI + . Ninety-day mortality was 21% in the EOLIA-group, 44% in the EOLIA + RVI-group, and 66% in the EOLIA + RVI + group (p < 0.001). After adjustment, RVI was statistically associated with 90-day mortality (HR = 1.92 [1.10-3.37]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among COVID-19-associated ARDS patients who met the EOLIA criteria, those with significant RV pressure overload had a particularly poor outcome. This subgroup may be a more specific target for ECMO. This represented 12% of our cohort compared to 60% of patients who met the EOLIA criteria only. How the identification of this high-risk subset of patients translates into patient-centered outcomes remains to be evaluated.

Methodological biases in observational hospital studies of COVID-19 treatment effectiveness: pitfalls and potential

Introduction

This study aims to discuss and assess the impact of three prevalent methodological biases: competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias in real-world observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. We use a demonstrative observational data example of COVID-19 patients to assess the impact of these biases and propose potential solutions.

Methods

We describe competing risks, immortal-time bias, and time-fixed confounding bias by evaluating treatment effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. For our demonstrative analysis, we use observational data from the registry of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Bellvitge University Hospital in Spain from March 2020 to February 2021 and met our predefined inclusion criteria. We compare estimates of a single-dose, time-dependent treatment with the standard of care. We analyze the treatment effectiveness using common statistical approaches, either by ignoring or only partially accounting for the methodological biases. To address these challenges, we emulate a target trial through the clone-censor-weight approach.

Results

Overlooking competing risk bias and employing the naïve Kaplan-Meier estimator led to increased in-hospital death probabilities in patients with COVID-19. Specifically, in the treatment effectiveness analysis, the Kaplan-Meier estimator resulted in an in-hospital mortality of 45.6% for treated patients and 59.0% for untreated patients. In contrast, employing an emulated trial framework with the weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator, we observed that in-hospital death probabilities were reduced to 27.9% in the "X"-treated arm and 40.1% in the non-"X"-treated arm. Immortal-time bias led to an underestimated hazard ratio of treatment.

Conclusion

Overlooking competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias leads to shifted estimates of treatment effects. Applying the naïve Kaplan-Meier method resulted in the most biased results and overestimated probabilities for the primary outcome in analyses of hospital data from COVID-19 patients. This overestimation could mislead clinical decision-making. Both immortal-time bias and confounding bias must be addressed in assessments of treatment effectiveness. The trial emulation framework offers a potential solution to address all three methodological biases.

Relationship between the Pre-ECMO and ECMO Time and Survival of Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus 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.

OBJECTIVE

The 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.

METHODS

PubMed, 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.

RESULTS

Out 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.

CONCLUSION

There 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.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-associated severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in Canada: Analysis of data from the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19 across Canada has not been well-described. We studied trends for patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome who received ECMO.

Methods

Multicentre retrospective cohort study using data from the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program across four different waves. Surveillance data was collected between March 2020 and June 2022. We reported data stratified by ECMO status and wave.

Results

ECMO recipients comprised 299 (6.8%) of the 4,408 critically ill patients included. ECMO recipients were younger (median age 49 versus 62 years, p < 0.001), less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (Wave 4 data: 5.3% versus 19%; p = 0.002), and had fewer comorbidities compared to patients who did not receive ECMO. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was similar between the ECMO and non-ECMO groups (23% versus 26%; p = 0.25). Among ECMO recipients, mortality tended to decrease across Waves 1 to 4: 48%, 31%, 18%, and 16%, respectively (p = 0.04 for trend). However, this was no longer statistically significant when removing the high mortality during Wave 1 (p = 0.15).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that critically ill patients in Canadian hospitals who received ECMO had different characteristics from those who did not receive ECMO. We also observed a trend of decreased mortality over the waves for the ECMO group. Possible explanatory factors may include potential delay in ECMO initiation during Wave 1, evolution of the virus, better understanding of COVID-19 disease and ECMO use, and new medical treatments and vaccines available in later waves. These findings may provide insight for future potential pandemics.

Prone Positioning During Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis

The available literature has furnished substantial evidence indicating the favorable outcomes of prone positioning (PP) on oxygenation parameters among patients afflicted with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is a notable disparity in the reported influence of PP on the overall outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) across studies. This article has been prepared in adherence with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were utilized for data retrieval. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the cumulative survival rate among COVID-19 patients receiving V-V ECMO, comparing those who received PP to those who did not. Secondary endpoints included the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ECMO duration, and mechanical ventilation duration. A total of 15 studies involving 2286 patients were analyzed in the meta-analysis. PP significantly improved the cumulative survival rate (0.48, 95% CI: 0.40-0.55); risk ratio (RR) of 1.24 (95% CI: 1.11-1.38).PP during ECMO for COVID-19 patients yielded favorable outcomes in terms of 60-day survival, 90-day survival, ICU survival, and hospital survival. In contrast, patients who underwent PP had longer ECMO duration (8.1 days, 95% CI: 6.2-9.9, p<0.001) and mechanical ventilation duration (9.6 days, 95% CI: 8.0-11.2, p<0.001). PP demonstrated improved survival in COVID-19 patients with ARDS receiving V-V ECMO. However, additional well-designed prospective trials are warranted to further explore the effects of this combination on survival outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Functional recovery in a cohort of ECMO and non-ECMO acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors

BACKGROUND

The mortality benefit of VV-ECMO in ARDS has been extensively studied, but the impact on long-term functional outcomes of survivors is poorly defined. We aimed to assess the association between ECMO and functional outcomes in a contemporaneous cohort of survivors of ARDS.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective cohort study of ARDS survivors who presented to follow-up clinic. The primary outcome was FVC% predicted. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the impact of ECMO on the primary outcome.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 110 survivors of ARDS, 34 of whom were managed using ECMO. The ECMO cohort was younger (35 [28, 50] vs. 51 [44, 61] years old, p < 0.01), less likely to have COVID-19 (58% vs. 96%, p < 0.01), more severely ill based on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (7 [5, 9] vs. 4 [3, 6], p < 0.01), dynamic lung compliance (15 mL/cmH20 [11, 20] vs. 27 mL/cmH20 [23, 35], p < 0.01), oxygenation index (26 [22, 33] vs. 9 [6, 11], p < 0.01), and their need for rescue modes of ventilation. ECMO patients had significantly longer lengths of hospitalization (46 [27, 62] vs. 16 [12, 31] days, p < 0.01) ICU stay (29 [19, 43] vs. 10 [5, 17] days, p < 0.01), and duration of mechanical ventilation (24 [14, 42] vs. 10 [7, 17] days, p < 0.01). Functional outcomes were similar in ECMO and non-ECMO patients. ECMO did not predict changes in lung function when adjusting for age, SOFA, COVID-19 status, or length of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in the FVC% predicted, or other markers of pulmonary, neurocognitive, or psychiatric functional recovery outcomes, when comparing a contemporaneous clinic-based cohort of survivors of ARDS managed with ECMO to those without ECMO.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19- Associated acute respiratory distress syndrome - Outcome and experience in a tertiary care intensive care unit - A retrospective study

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who fail conventional treatment.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was designed in patients who underwent ECMO for severe COVID-19 ARDS in a tertiary care centre from September 2020 to July 2021. The primary outcome was to assess factors influencing clinical outcomes and survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were to assess the clinical profile and pre-ECMO features, ECMO characteristics and complications. Collected data were entered in Excel software and analysed using R software version 4.0.2 (R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

A total of 19 patients underwent ECMO. Ten patients survived and discharge. Survivors had a longer median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration (days) on ECMO, that is, 25 (7-50), compared to non-survivors, that is, 12 (1-34) (P = 0.133). We also noted that patients who survived had a longer median (IQR) duration (days) of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, that is, 41.5 (30-70), compared to non-survivors, that is, 9 (2-40) (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

In our study, 52.3% of patients survived and discharge, and with ECMO outcomes for COVID-19 ARDS were at par with ECMO outcomes for non-COVID-19 ARDS despite requiring ECMO for longer duration and increased ICU length of stay.

Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice.

Objective

To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial.

Evidence Review

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation.

Findings

A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

Retrospective analysis of factors associated with outcome in veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation

BACKGROUND

The outcome of Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in acute respiratory failure may be influenced by patient-related factors, center expertise and modalities of mechanical ventilation (MV) during ECMO. We determined, in a medium-size ECMO center in Switzerland, possible factors associated with mortality during VV-ECMO for acute respiratory failure of various etiologies.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients treated with VV-ECMO in our University Hospital from 2012 to 2019 (pre-COVID era). Demographic variables, severity scores, MV duration before ECMO, pre and on-ECMO arterial blood gases and respiratory variables were collected. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Data were compared between survivors and non-survivors, and factors associated with mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (33 ARDS, 18 non-ARDS) were included. ICU survival was 49% (ARDS, 39%; non-ARDS 67%). In univariate analyses, a higher driving pressure (DP) at 24h and 48h on ECMO (whole population), longer MV duration before ECMO and higher DP at 24h on ECMO (ARDS patients), were associated with mortality. In multivariate analyses, ECMO indication, higher DP at 24h on ECMO and, in ARDS, longer MV duration before ECMO, were independently associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

DP on ECMO and longer MV duration before ECMO (in ARDS) are major, and potentially modifiable, factors influencing outcome during VV-ECMO.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: A nationwide analysis

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to elucidate the association between ECMO and mortality in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS in the nationwide setting. United States National Inpatient Sample was used to identify mechanically ventilated adults for COVID-19 with ARDS. We divided them into three groups according to the use of ECMO (i.e., no-ECMO, venovenous [VV]-ECMO, and venoarterial [VA]-ECMO). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay (LOS) and the total costs during hospitalization. We performed a stepwise logistic regression, adjusting for baseline characteristics, comorbidities, and severity. We included 68 795 (mean age [SD]: 63.5 [0.1]), 3280 (mean age [SD]: 48.7 [0.5]), and 340 (mean age [SD]: 43.3 [2.1]) patients who received no-, VV-, and VA-ECMO, respectively. The logistic regression analysis did not show significant associations between the use of VV-/VA-ECMO and mortality (adjusted odds ratio with no-ECMO as reference [95% confidence interval]: 1.03 [0.86-1.24] and 1.18 [0.64-2.15], respectively). While LOS was longest with VV-ECMO, the total costs were highest with VA-ECMO. In conclusion, our study found no association between the use of ECMO and mortality of COVID-19-associated ARDS in the nationwide setting.

ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

Facing the Challenges in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: From Standard Treatments to the Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells as a New Therapeutic Strategy

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which counts more than 650 million cases and more than 6.6 million of deaths worldwide, affects the respiratory system with typical symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and fatigue. Other nonpulmonary manifestations are related with abnormal inflammatory response, the "cytokine storm", that could lead to a multiorgan disease and to death. Evolution of effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 provided multiple options to prevent the infection, but the treatment of the severe forms remains difficult to manage. The cytokine storm is usually counteracted with standard medical care and anti-inflammatory drugs, but researchers moved forward their studies on new strategies based on cell therapy approaches. The perinatal tissues, such as placental membranes, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cord derivatives, are enriched in mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) that exert a well-known anti-inflammatory role, immune response modulation, and tissue repair. In this review, we focused on umbilical-cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs) used in in vitro and in vivo studies in order to evaluate the weakening of the severe symptoms, and on recent clinical trials from different databases, supporting the favorable potential of UC-MSCs as therapeutic strategy.

Target Trial Emulation Using Hospital-Based Observational Data: Demonstration and Application in COVID-19

Methodological biases are common in observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. The objective of this study is to emulate a target trial in a competing risks setting using hospital-based observational data. We extend established methodology accounting for immortal time bias and time-fixed confounding biases to a setting where no survival information beyond hospital discharge is available: a condition common to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research data. This exemplary study includes a cohort of 618 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We describe methodological opportunities and challenges that cannot be overcome applying traditional statistical methods. We demonstrate the practical implementation of this trial emulation approach via clone-censor-weight techniques. We undertake a competing risk analysis, reporting the cause-specific cumulative hazards and cumulative incidence probabilities. Our analysis demonstrates that a target trial emulation framework can be extended to account for competing risks in COVID-19 hospital studies. In our analysis, we avoid immortal time bias, time-fixed confounding bias, and competing risks bias simultaneously. Choosing the length of the grace period is justified from a clinical perspective and has an important advantage in ensuring reliable results. This extended trial emulation with the competing risk analysis enables an unbiased estimation of treatment effects, along with the ability to interpret the effectiveness of treatment on all clinically important outcomes.

Prognostic factors associated with mortality among patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be considered for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who continue to deteriorate despite evidence-based therapies and lung-protective ventilation. The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization has emphasised the importance of patient selection; however, to better inform these decisions, a comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of the risk factors associated with poor outcomes is necessary. We aimed to summarise the association between pre-cannulation prognostic factors and risk of mortality in adult patients requiring venovenous ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from Dec 1, 2019, to April 14, 2022, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies involving adult patients who required ECMO for COVID-19-associated ARDS and for whom pre-cannulation prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality were evaluated. We conducted separate meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (uORs), adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), and mean differences, and excluded studies if these data could not be extracted. We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Our protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework registry, osf.io/6gcy2.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 2888 studies, of which 42 observational cohort studies involving 17 449 patients were included. Factors that had moderate or high certainty of association with increased mortality included patient factors, such as older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2·27 [95% CI 1·63-3·16]), male sex (unadjusted odds ratio [uOR] 1·34 [1·20-1·49]), and chronic lung disease (aHR 1·55 [1·20-2·00]); pre-cannulation disease factors, such as longer duration of symptoms (mean difference 1·51 days [95% CI 0·36-2·65]), longer duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (uOR 1·94 [1·40-2·67]), higher partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (mean difference 4·04 mm Hg [1·64-6·44]), and higher driving pressure (aHR 2·36 [1·40-3·97]); and centre factors, such as less previous experience with ECMO (aOR 2·27 [1·28-4·05].

INTERPRETATION

The prognostic factors identified highlight the importance of patient selection, the effect of injurious lung ventilation, and the potential opportunity for greater centralisation and collaboration in the use of ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS. These factors should be carefully considered as part of a risk stratification framework when evaluating a patient for potential treatment with venovenous ECMO.

FUNDING

None.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a narrative review

A growing body of evidence supports the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) refractory to maximal medical therapy. ARDS may develop in a proportion of patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and ECMO may be used to manage patients refractory to maximal medical therapy to mitigate the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury and provide lung rest while awaiting recovery. The mortality of COVID-19-related ARDS was variously reassessed during the pandemic. Veno-venous (VV) ECMO was the default choice to manage refractory respiratory failure; however, with concomitant severe right ventricular dysfunction, venoarterial (VA) ECMO or mechanical right ventricular assist devices with extracorporeal gas exchange (Oxy-RVAD) were also considered. ECMO has also been used to manage special populations such as pregnant women, pediatric patients affected by severe forms of COVID-19, and, in cases with persistent and seemingly irreversible respiratory failure, as a bridge to successful lung transplantation. In this narrative review, we outline and summarize the most recent evidence that has emerged on ECMO use in different patient populations with COVID-19-related ARDS.

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.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Acute Respiratory Failure

Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a form of mechanical life support that provides full respiratory bypass in patients with severe respiratory failure as a bridge to recovery or lung transplantation. The use of ECMO for respiratory failure and capable centers offering ECMO has expanded over the years, increasing its availability. As VV-ECMO provides an artificial mechanism for oxygenation and decarboxylation of native blood, it allows for an environment in which safer mechanical ventilatory care may be provided, allowing for treatment and resolution of underlying respiratory pathologies. Landmark clinical trials have provided a framework for better understanding patient selection criteria, resource utilization, and outcomes associated with ECMO when applied in settings of refractory respiratory failure. Maintaining close vigilance and management of complications during ECMO as well as identifying strategies post-ECMO (e.g., recovery, transplantation, etc.), are critical to successful ECMO support. In this review, we examine considerations for candidate selection for VV-ECMO, review the evidence of utilizing VV-ECMO in respiratory failure, and provide practical considerations for managing respiratory ECMO patients, including complication identification and management, as well as assessing for the ability to separate from ECMO support and the procedures for decannulation.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: A narrative review

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an established rescue therapy in the management of refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although ECMO played an important role in previous respiratory viral epidemics, concerns about the benefits and usefulness of this technique were raised during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Indeed, the mortality rate initially reported in small case series from China was concerning and exceeded 90%. A few months later, the critical care community published the findings from several observational cohorts on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19-related ARDS. Contrary to the preliminary results, data from the first surge supported the use of ECMO in experienced centers because the mortality rate was comparable to those from the ECMO to Rescue Lung Injury in Severe ARDS (EOLIA) trial or other large prospective studies. However, the mortality rate of the population with severe disease evolved during the pandemic, in conjunction with changes in the management of the disease and the occurrence of new variants. The results from subsequent studies confirmed that the outcomes mainly depend on strict patient selection and center expertise. In comparison with non-COVID-related ARDS, the duration of ECMO for COVID-related ARDS was longer and increased over time. Clinicians and decision-makers must integrate this finding in the ECMO decision-making process to plan their ICU capacity and resource allocation. This narrative review summarizes the current evidence and specific considerations for ECMO use in COVID-19-associated ARDS.

Respiratory indications for ECMO: focus on COVID-19

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly being used for patients with severe respiratory failure and has received particular attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Evidence from two key randomized controlled trials, a subsequent post hoc Bayesian analysis, and meta-analyses support the interpretation of a benefit of ECMO in combination with ultra-lung-protective ventilation for select patients with very severe forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During the pandemic, new evidence has emerged helping to better define the role of ECMO for patients with COVID-19. Results from large cohorts suggest outcomes during the first wave of the pandemic were similar to those in non-COVID-19 cohorts. As the pandemic continued, mortality of patients supported with ECMO has increased. However, the precise reasons for this observation are unclear. Known risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients are higher patient age, concomitant extra-pulmonary organ failures or malignancies, prolonged mechanical ventilation before ECMO, less experienced treatment teams and lower ECMO caseloads in the treating center. ECMO is a high resource-dependent support option; therefore, it should be used judiciously, and its availability may need to be constrained when resources are scarce. More evidence from high-quality research is required to better define the role and limitations of ECMO in patients with severe COVID-19.