Ethical factors determining ECMO allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Ethical Considerations for Mechanical Support

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has the ability to support patients with severe forms of cardiac and respiratory failure. Rapid expansion of ECLS, its resource-intensive and invasive nature, and the high acuity illness of supported patients have raised important questions. Specific issues include identification of patients most likely to benefit, the appropriate duration of support amid uncertain prognosis, and what to do when patients become dependent on ECLS but no longer have hope for recovery or transplantation. Careful deliberation of ethical principles and potential dilemmas should be made when considering the use of ECLS in advanced cardiopulmonary failure.

Geospatial Access to Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a Geospatial Information System analysis of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) centers in the United States utilizing data from the U.S. Census Bureau to better understand access to ECMO care and identify potential disparities.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional descriptive and statistical analysis of geospatial access to ECMO-capable centers in the United States, accounting for demographic variables.

SETTING

The unit of analysis were U.S. Census block groups and demographic variables of interest obtained from the American Community Survey.

PATIENTS

Patients accounted for in the U.S. Census data.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent of the U.S. population had direct access to ECMO-capable centers. Disparities were present, with Puerto Rico, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska having no access. Poverty, increased age, and lower population density consistently correlated with limited access. We identified significant racial and ethnic disparities in the Midwest and Northeast.

CONCLUSIONS

While 67% of the U.S. population had access to ECMO-capable centers by ground transportation, significant disparities in access exist. These findings emphasize the need for thoughtful implementation of ECMO systems of care to ensure equitable access. Future work should focus on developing novel systems of care that increase access utilizing advanced technology, such as aeromedical transport services.

Collective Reflective Equilibrium, Algorithmic Bioethics and Complex Ethics

John Harris has made many seminal contributions to bioethics. Two of these are in the ethics of resource allocation. Firstly, he proposed the "fair innings argument" which was the first sufficientarian approach to distributive justice. Resources should be provided to ensure people have a fair innings-when Harris first wrote this, around 70 years of life, but perhaps now 80. Secondly, Harris famously advanced the egalitarian position in response to utilitarian approaches to allocation (such as maximizing Quality Adjusted Life Years [QALYs]) that what people want is the greatest chance of the longest, best quality life for themselves, and justice requires treating these claims equally. Harris thus proposed both sufficientarian and egalitarian approaches. This chapter compares these approaches with utilitarian and contractualist approaches and provides a methodology for deciding among these (Collective Reflective Equilibrium). This methodology is applied to the allocation of ventilators in the pandemic (as an example) and an ethical algorithm for their deployment created. This paper describes the concept of algorithmic bioethics as a way of addressing pluralism of values and context specificity of moral judgment and policy, and addressing complex ethics.

Experts' Views on Factors Influencing Resource Allocation for Infectious Disease Emergencies Based on Humanitarian Principles: A Qualitative Study

Introduction

Infectious diseases can result in global emergencies and a shortage of resources, leading to ethical and humanitarian challenges. This study aimed to identify the factors that affect the allocation of health resources based on humanitarian principles during infectious disease emergencies.

Methods

This study was conducted using a qualitative approach known as content analysis, and 23 specialists and experts with practical experience and theoretical knowledge in this area were carefully selected to participate in the study. The selection process continued until the principle of data saturation was attained. Data collection was done through in-depth, semi-structured interviews that were conducted from October to December 2023.

Results

Factors affecting resource allocation were categorized into 9 main themes, 25 categories, and 50 subcategories. The extracted themes are: (1) Rules and Regulations; (2) Quality in Allocation; (3) Human Aspects; (4) Epidemic/Pandemic Characteristics; (5) Governance and Policymaking; (6) Emergency Management; (7) Resource Management; (8) Solidarity; (9) Trustworthiness.

Conclusions

During emergencies caused by infectious diseases, resource allocation requires attention to various aspects such as laws, protocols, procedures, organizational structures, and coordination mechanisms. Ethical principles and respect for human aspects are also important.

To ventilate or not to ventilate: A qualitative analysis of physicians' experience during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic

Little is known about experiences of physicians when deciding on initiating life support during medical crises of mass casualties and undersupply. We performed a qualitative analysis of interviews with 14 physicians about their decision-making experience when considering initiating mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 during the early pandemic. Three themes were revealed: (a) The accumulating clinical experience with invasive ventilation, and the physicians' perception of ventilation as effective or futile in these patients; (b) Preferences of patients and their families regarding mechanical ventilation; and (c) Economic, logistic, and organizational considerations of the undersupplied healthcare system. The circumstances under which end-of-life decisions were made often caused moral injury to physicians, in particular when their personal ethical standpoints were not integrated in the decision-making process. Our findings explore the moral injury suffered by physicians and may help identify strategies to mitigate moral injury of healthcare staff in times of medical crisis.

Decision-making and ethical dilemmas experienced by hospital physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, global healthcare systems faced unprecedented challenges, with a lack of resources and suboptimal patient care emerging as primary concerns.

METHODS

Our research, using a comprehensive 24-item electronic questionnaire, "Reflections on the Provision of Healthcare during the COVID-19 Pandemic," delved into the experiences of 938 physicians across the Czech Republic.

RESULTS

Over fifty per cent observed a "lower standard of care" compared to pre-pandemic levels. A division arose among physicians regarding a decision's medical, ethical, or legal basis, with a notable gender disparity: male doctors leaned towards medical perspectives, whereas females accented the ethical perspective. Decision-making concerning health care limitations required agreement among the physicians on duty, interdisciplinary teams, or shift supervisors. Physicians reported varying degrees of patient or family participation in health care decisions. Variables such as age, pre-existing health conditions, and life expectancy influenced care decisions. Surprisingly, half of the physicians faced refusals of patients' transportation to better-equipped facilities due to resource constraints. One-third of physicians never discuss the decision about care limitation and other options with patients or their families. As a result, almost fifty per cent of the physicians rarely or never imparted information about care limitations to patients.

CONCLUSION

The survey shed light on the profound ethical dilemmas hospital physicians face across different types of healthcare facilities during the pandemic. It uncovered the need for open dialogue and scholarly debate on resource allocation and strengthening the role of patients and their families in care decisions in future healthcare crises.

Body mass index is not associated with time on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or in-hospital mortality

Morbid obesity, as characterized by BMI, is often utilized as an exclusion criterion for VV-ECMO because of presumed poor prognosis and technically complex cannulation. However, the "obesity paradox" suggests obesity may be protective during critical illness, and BMI does not capture variations in body type, adiposity, or fluid balance. This study examines relationships between BMI and patient outcomes. Adult VV-ECMO patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 admitted January 2012 to June 2021 were identified from an institutional registry. BMI and outcomes were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U tests and Pearson correlations with Bayesian post-hoc analyses. 116 of 960 ECMO patients met inclusion criteria. Median (Q1, Q3) BMI was 42.3 (37.3, 50.8) and min, max of 35.0, 87.8 with 9.0 (5.0, 15.5) ECMO days. BMI was not significantly correlated with ECMO days (r = -0.102; p = .279). Bayesian analyses showed moderate evidence against BMI correlating with ECMO days. In-hospital mortality (27%) was significantly associated with ECMO days (p = .014) but not BMI (p = .485). In this cohort of high-BMI patients, BMI was not associated with survival or time on ECMO. BMI itself should not be used as an exclusion criterion for VV-ECMO.

Discontinuation of Cardiac Devices at or Near an Adult Patient's End of Life

Advances in medical technology have begun to blur the lines between life and death as well as the lines between appropriate and inappropriate therapy. This review addresses the charged issue of the management of cardiac devices at or near the end of a patient's life, provides a summary of prior and current opinion with some historical context, and attempts to provide some modest guidance as to how to approach the various options to the patient's best advantage. Modalities to be addressed include indwelling electronic devices, the left ventricular assistance device, and extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, and includes available outcome data as well as ethical analysis from a number of commentators. The expected further increase in technical sophistication of these devices is expected to render the various aspects of device deactivation more and more complex over the course of the next few years such that careful attention to and knowledge about this issue will continue to be more and more necessary.

Web-based Dashboard on ECMO Utilization in Germany: An Interactive Visualization, Analyses, and Prediction Based on Real-life Data

In Germany, a comprehensive reimbursement policy for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) results in the highest per capita use worldwide, although benefits remain controversial. Public ECMO data is unstructured and poorly accessible to healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers. In addition, there are no uniform policies for ECMO allocation which confronts medical personnel with ethical considerations during health crises such as respiratory virus outbreaks.Retrospective information on adult and pediatric ECMO support performed in German hospitals was extracted from publicly available reimbursement data and hospital quality reports and processed to create the web-based ECMO Dashboard built on Open-Source software. Patient-level and hospital-level data were merged resulting in a solid base for ECMO use analysis and ECMO demand forecasting with high spatial granularity at the level of 413 county and city districts in Germany.The ECMO Dashboard ( https://www.ecmo-dash.de/ ), an innovative visual platform, presents the retrospective utilization patterns of ECMO support in Germany. It features interactive maps, comprehensive charts, and tables, providing insights at the hospital, district, and national levels. This tool also highlights the high prevalence of ECMO support in Germany and emphasizes districts with ECMO surplus - where patients from other regions are treated, or deficit - origins from which ECMO patients are transferred to other regions. The dashboard will evolve iteratively to provide stakeholders with vital information for informed and transparent resource allocation and decision-making.Accessible public routine data could support evidence-informed, forward-looking resource management policies, which are urgently needed to increase the quality and prepare the critical care infrastructure for future pandemics.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 and influenza H1N1 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: A comparative cohort study in China

Background

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has been demonstrated to be effective in treating patients with virus-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, whether the management of ECMO is different in treating H1N1 influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated ARDS patients remains unknown.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study. We included 12 VV-ECMO-supported COVID-19 patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Eighth People's Hospital, and Wuhan Union Hospital West Campus between January 23 and March 31, 2020. We retrospectively included VV-ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 and H1N1 influenza-associated ARDS. Clinical characteristics, respiratory mechanics including plateau pressure, driving pressure, mechanical power, ventilatory ratio (VR) and lung compliance, and outcomes were compared.

Results

Data from 25 patients with COVID-19 (n=12) and H1N1 (n=13) associated ARDS who had received ECMO support were analyzed. COVID-19 patients were older than H1N1 influenza patients (P=0.004). The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and VR before ECMO initiation were significantly higher in COVID-19 patients than in H1N1 influenza patients (P <0.001 and P=0.004, respectively). COVID-19 patients showed increased plateau and driving pressure compared with H1N1 subjects (P=0.013 and P=0.018, respectively). Patients with COVID-19 remained longer on ECMO support than did H1N1 influenza patients (P=0.015). COVID-19 patients who required ECMO support also had fewer intensive care unit and ventilator-free days than H1N1.

Conclusions

Compared with H1N1 influenza patients, COVID-19 patients were older and presented with increased PaCO2 and VR values before ECMO initiation. The differences between ARDS patients with COVID-19 and influenza on VV-ECMO detailed herein could be helpful for obtaining a better understanding of COVID-19 and for better clinical management.

Validation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation mortality prediction and severity of illness scores in an international COVID-19 cohort

BACKGROUND

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) is a lifesaving support modality for severe respiratory failure, but its resource-intensive nature led to significant controversy surrounding its use during the COVID-19 pandemic. We report the performance of several ECMO mortality prediction and severity of illness scores at discriminating survival in a large COVID-19 V-V ECMO cohort.

METHODS

We validated ECMOnet, PRESET (PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy-Score), Roch, SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), APACHE II (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation), 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium), and CURB-65 (Confusion, Urea nitrogen, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure, age >65 years) scores on the ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium) database. We report discrimination via Area Under the Receiver Operative Curve (AUROC) and Area under the Precision Recall Curve (AURPC) and calibration via Brier score.

RESULTS

We included 1147 patients and scores were calculated on patients with sufficient variables. ECMO mortality scores had AUROC (0.58-0.62), AUPRC (0.62-0.74), and Brier score (0.286-0.303). Roch score had the highest accuracy (AUROC 0.62), precision (AUPRC 0.74) yet worst calibration (Brier score of 0.3) despite being calculated on the fewest patients (144). Severity of illness scores had AUROC (0.52-0.57), AURPC (0.59-0.64), and Brier Score (0.265-0.471). APACHE II had the highest accuracy (AUROC 0.58), precision (AUPRC 0.64), and best calibration (Brier score 0.26).

CONCLUSION

Within a large international multicenter COVID-19 cohort, the evaluated ECMO mortality prediction and severity of illness scores demonstrated inconsistent discrimination and calibration highlighting the need for better clinically applicable decision support tools.

Validation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation mortality prediction and severity of illness scores in an international COVID‐19 cohort

Background

Veno‐venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V‐V ECMO) is a lifesaving support modality for severe respiratory failure, but its resource‐intensive nature led to significant controversy surrounding its use during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We report the performance of several ECMO mortality prediction and severity of illness scores at discriminating survival in a large COVID‐19 V‐V ECMO cohort.

Methods

We validated ECMOnet, PRESET (PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy‐Score), Roch, SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), APACHE II (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation), 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium), and CURB‐65 (Confusion, Urea nitrogen, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure, age >65 years) scores on the ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium) database. We report discrimination via Area Under the Receiver Operative Curve (AUROC) and Area under the Precision Recall Curve (AURPC) and calibration via Brier score.

Results

We included 1147 patients and scores were calculated on patients with sufficient variables. ECMO mortality scores had AUROC (0.58–0.62), AUPRC (0.62–0.74), and Brier score (0.286–0.303). Roch score had the highest accuracy (AUROC 0.62), precision (AUPRC 0.74) yet worst calibration (Brier score of 0.3) despite being calculated on the fewest patients (144). Severity of illness scores had AUROC (0.52–0.57), AURPC (0.59–0.64), and Brier Score (0.265–0.471). APACHE II had the highest accuracy (AUROC 0.58), precision (AUPRC 0.64), and best calibration (Brier score 0.26).

Conclusion

Within a large international multicenter COVID‐19 cohort, the evaluated ECMO mortality prediction and severity of illness scores demonstrated inconsistent discrimination and calibration highlighting the need for better clinically applicable decision support tools.

Withdrawing extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) against a family's wishes: Three permissible scenarios

The ethical permissibility of unilaterally withdrawing life-sustaining technologies has been a perennial topic in transplant and critical care medicine, often focusing on CPR and mechanical ventilation. The permissibility of unilateral withdrawal of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been discussed sparingly. When addressed, authors have appealed to professional authority rather than substantive ethical analysis. In this Perspective, we argue that there are at least three (3) scenarios wherein healthcare teams would be justified in unilaterally withdrawing ECMO, despite the objections of the patient's legal representative. The ethical considerations that provide the groundwork for these scenarios are, primarily: equity, integrity, and the moral equivalence between withholding and withdrawing medical technologies. First, we place equity in the context of crisis standards of medicine. After this, we discuss professional integrity as it relates to the innovative usage of medical technologies. Finally, we discuss the ethical consensus known at the "equivalence thesis." Each of these considerations include a scenario and justification for unilateral withdrawal. We also provide three (3) recommendations that aim at preventing these challenges at their outset. Our conclusions and recommendations are not meant to be blunt arguments that ECMO teams wield whenever disagreement about the propriety of continued ECMO support arises. Instead, the onus will be on individual ECMO programs to evaluate these arguments and decide if they represent sensible, correct, and implementable starting points for clinical practice guidelines or policies.

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.

Multi-horizon predictive models for guiding extracorporeal resource allocation in critically ill COVID-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) resource allocation tools are currently lacking. We developed machine learning (ML) models for predicting COVID-19 patients at risk of receiving ECMO to guide patient triage and resource allocation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units for >24 h from March 2020 to October 2021, divided into training and testing development and testing-only holdout cohorts. We developed ECMO deployment timely prediction model ForecastECMO using Gradient Boosting Tree (GBT), with pre-ECMO prediction horizons from 0 to 48 h, compared to PaO2/FiO2 ratio, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy score, logistic regression, and 30 pre-selected clinical variables GBT Clinical GBT models, with area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) and precision recall curve (AUPRC) metrics.

RESULTS

ECMO prevalence was 2.89% and 1.73% in development and holdout cohorts. ForecastECMO had the best performance in both cohorts. At the 18-h prediction horizon, a potentially clinically actionable pre-ECMO window, ForecastECMO, had the highest AUROC (0.94 and 0.95) and AUPRC (0.54 and 0.37) in development and holdout cohorts in identifying ECMO patients without data 18 h prior to ECMO.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We developed a multi-horizon model, ForecastECMO, with high performance in identifying patients receiving ECMO at various prediction horizons. This model has potential to be used as early alert tool to guide ECMO resource allocation for COVID-19 patients. Future prospective multicenter validation would provide evidence for generalizability and real-world application of such models to improve patient outcomes.

Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: A Call For System-Wide Checks to Ensure Equitable Delivery For All

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged in the COVID-19 pandemic as a potentially beneficial yet scare resource for treating critically ill patients, with variable allocation across the United States. The existing literature has not addressed barriers patients may face in access to ECMO as a result of healthcare inequity. We present a novel patient-centered framework of ECMO access, providing evidence for potential bias and opportunities to mitigate this bias at every stage between a marginalized patient's initial presentation to treatment with ECMO. While equitable access to ECMO support is a global challenge, this piece focuses primarily on patients in the United States with severe COVID-19-associated ARDS to draw from current literature on VV-ECMO for ARDS and does not address issues that affect ECMO access on a more international scale.

Differences in US Regional Healthcare Allocation Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Hospitals faced unprecedented scarcity of resources without parallel in modern times during the COVID-19 pandemic. This scarcity led healthcare systems and states to develop or modify scarce resource allocation guidelines that could be implemented during "crisis standards of care" (CSC). CSC describes a significant change in healthcare operations and the level of care provided during a public health emergency.

OBJECTIVE

Our study provides a comprehensive examination of the latest CSC guidelines in the western region of the USA, where Alaska and Idaho declared CSC, focusing on ethical issues and health disparities.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods survey study of physicians and/or ethicists and review of healthcare system and state allocation guidelines.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten physicians and/or ethicists who participated in scarce resource allocation guideline development from seven healthcare systems or three state-appointed committees from the western region of the USA including Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and California.

RESULTS

All sites surveyed developed allocation guidelines, but only four (40%) were operationalized either statewide or for specific scarce resources. Most guidelines included comorbidities (70%), and half included adjustments for socioeconomic disadvantage (50%), while only one included specific priority groups (10%). Allocation tiebreakers included the life cycle principle and random number generators. Six guidelines evolved over time, removing restrictions such as age, severity of illness, and comorbidities. Additional palliative care (20%) and ethics (50%) resources were planned by some guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Allocation guidelines are essential to support clinicians during public health emergencies; however, significant deficits and differences in guidelines were identified that may perpetuate structural inequities and racism. While a universal triage protocol that is equally accepted by all communities is unlikely, the lack of regional agreement on standards with justification and transparency has the potential to erode public trust and perpetuate inequity.

Eligibility of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the United States: A geographic information system model

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggest that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) may improve survival rates for nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Eligibility criteria for ECPR are often based on patient age, clinical variables, and facility capabilities. Expanding access to ECPR across the U.S. requires a better understanding of how these factors interact with transport time to ECPR centers.

METHODS

We constructed a Geographic Information System (GIS) model to estimate the number of ECPR candidates in the U.S. We utilized a Resuscitation Outcome Consortium (ROC) database to model time-dependent rates of ECPR eligibility and the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) registry to determine the total number of OHCA patients who meet pre-specified ECPR criteria within designated transportation times. The combined model was used to estimate the total number of ECPR candidates.

RESULTS

There were 588,203 OHCA patients in the CARES registry from 2013 to 2020. After applying clinical eligibility criteria, 22,104 (3.76%) OHCA patients were deemed eligible for ECPR. The rate of ROSC increased with longer resuscitation time, which resulted in fewer ECPR candidates. The proportion of OHCA patients eligible for ECPR increased with older age cutoffs. Only 1.68% (9,889/588,203) of OHCA patients in the U.S. were eligible for ECPR based on a 45-minute transportation time to an ECMO-ready center model.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 2% of OHCA patients are eligible for ECPR in the U.S. GIS models can identify the impact of clinical criteria, transportation time, and hospital capabilities on ECPR eligibility to inform future implementation strategies.

Calibration and validation of the Pneumonia Shock Score in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, a multicenter prospective cohort study

Background

Prognostic tools developed to stratify critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), are critical to predict those with higher risk of mortality in the first hours of admission. This study aims to evaluate the performance of the pShock score in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

Prospective observational analytical cohort study conducted between January 2020 and March 2021 in four general ICUs in Salvador, Brazil. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort and a logistic regression, followed by cross-validation, were performed to calibrate the score. A ROC curve analysis was used to assess accuracy of the models analyzed.

Results

Six hundred five adult ICU patients were included in the study. The median age was 63 (IQR: 49–74) years with a mortality rate of 33.2% (201 patients). The calibrated pShock-CoV score performed well in prediction of ICU mortality (AUC of 0.80 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.77–0.83; p-value < 0.0001]).

Conclusions

The pShock-CoV score demonstrated robust discriminatory capacity and may assist in targeting scarce ICU resources during the COVID-19 pandemic to those critically ill patients most likely to benefit.

The Year in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Selected Highlights From 2021

This review summarizes the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or extracorporeal life support literature published in 2021. This Selected Highlights article is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the literature, but rather a summarizing of key themes that developed in the ECMO literature during 2021. The primary topics presented include the following: ECMO for coronavirus disease 2019, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, periprocedural cardiopulmonary support with ECMO, and anticoagulation for ECMO.

Computational ethics

Technological advances are enabling roles for machines that present novel ethical challenges. The study of 'AI ethics' has emerged to confront these challenges, and connects perspectives from philosophy, computer science, law, and economics. Less represented in these interdisciplinary efforts is the perspective of cognitive science. We propose a framework - computational ethics - that specifies how the ethical challenges of AI can be partially addressed by incorporating the study of human moral decision-making. The driver of this framework is a computational version of reflective equilibrium (RE), an approach that seeks coherence between considered judgments and governing principles. The framework has two goals: (i) to inform the engineering of ethical AI systems, and (ii) to characterize human moral judgment and decision-making in computational terms. Working jointly towards these two goals will create the opportunity to integrate diverse research questions, bring together multiple academic communities, uncover new interdisciplinary research topics, and shed light on centuries-old philosophical questions.

Ethics of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation under Conventional and Crisis Standards of Care

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a form of life support for cardiac and/or pulmonary failure with unique ethical challenges compared to other forms of life support. Ethical challenges with ECMO exist when conventional standards of care apply, and are exacerbated during periods of absolute ECMO scarcity when "crisis standards of care" are instituted. When conventional standards of care apply, we propose that it is ethically permissible to withhold placing patients on ECMO for reasons of technical futility or when patients have terminal, short-term prognoses that are untreatable by ECMO. Under crisis standards of care, it is ethically permissible to broaden exclusionary criteria to also withhold ECMO from patients who have a low likelihood of recovery, to maximize the overall number of lives saved. Unilateral withdrawal of ECMO against a patient's preferences is unethical under conventional standards of care, but is ethical under crisis standards of care to increase access to ECMO to others in society. ECMO should only be rationed when true scarcity exists, and allocation protocols should be transparent to the public. When rationing must occur under crisis standards of care, it is imperative that oversight bodies assess for inequities in the allocation of ECMO and make frequent changes to improve any inequities.

Ethical Considerations in Ever-Expanding Utilization of ECLS: A Research Agenda

Technological advancements and rapid expansion in the clinical use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) across all age ranges in the last decade, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, has led to important ethical considerations. As a costly and resource intensive therapy, ECLS is used emergently under high stakes circumstances where there is often prognostic uncertainty and risk for serious complications. To develop a research agenda to further characterize and address these ethical dilemmas, a working group of specialists in ECLS, critical care, cardiothoracic surgery, palliative care, and bioethics convened at a single pediatric academic institution over the course of 18 months. Using an iterative consensus process, research questions were selected based on: (1) frequency, (2) uniqueness to ECLS, (3) urgency, (4) feasibility to study, and (5) potential to improve patient care. Questions were categorized into broad domains of societal decision-making, bedside decision-making, patient and family communication, medical team dynamics, and research design and implementation. A deeper exploration of these ethical dilemmas through formalized research and deliberation may improve equitable access and quality of ECLS-related medical care.