Validation of survival prediction models for ECMO in Sars-CoV-2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome

External Validation of the PREdiction of Survival on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy (PRESET) Score: A Single Center Cohort Experience

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition affecting >10% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients worldwide with a mortality of up to 59% depending on severity. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a potentially life-saving procedure in severe ARDS but is technically and financially challenging. In recent years, various scoring systems have been proposed to select patients most likely to benefit from ECMO, with the PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy (PRESET) score being one of the most used. We collected data from 283 patients with ARDS of various etiology who underwent veno-venous (V-V) ECMO therapy at a German tertiary care ICU from January 2012 to December 2022. Median age in the cohort was 56 years, and 64.31% were males. The in-hospital mortality rate was 50.88% (n = 144). The median (25%; 75% quartile) severity scores were 38 (31; 49) for Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, 12 (10; 13) for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and 7 (5; 8) for PRESET. Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II displayed the best prognostic value (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC]: 0.665 [confidence interval (CI): 0.574-0.756; p = 0.046]). Prediction performance was weak in all analyzed scores despite good calibration. Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II had the best discrimination after adjustment of our original cohort. The use of scores explored in this study for patient selection for eligibility for V-V ECMO is not recommendable.

Advanced Respiratory Support Days as a Novel Marker of Mortality in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Emerging evidence suggests prolonged use of noninvasive respiratory support may increase mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome who require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Using a database of adults receiving ECMO for COVID-19, we calculated survival curves and multivariable Cox regression to determine the risk of death associated with pre-ECMO use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) days. We investigated the performance of a novel variable, advanced respiratory support days (composite of HFNO, NIV, and IMV days), on Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction (RESP) score. Subjects (N = 146) with increasing advanced respiratory support days (<5, 5-9, and ≥10) had a stepwise increase in 90 day mortality (32.2%, 57.7%, and 75.4%, respectively; p = 0.002). Ninety-day mortality was significantly higher in subjects (N = 121) receiving NIV >4 days (81.8% vs. 52.4%, p < 0.001). Each additional pre-ECMO advanced respiratory support day increased the odds of right ventricular failure (odds ratio [OR]: 1.066, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.002-1.135) and in-hospital mortality (1.17, 95% CI: 1.08-1.27). Substituting advanced respiratory support days for IMV days improved RESP score mortality prediction (area under the curve (AUC) or: 0.64 vs. 0.71). Pre-ECMO advanced respiratory support days were associated with increased 90 day mortality compared with IMV days alone. Adjusting the RESP score for advanced respiratory support days improved mortality prediction.

Ability of the respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP) score to predict survival for patients with COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS: a single-center retrospective study

The respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP) score is used to predict survival for patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), but its performance in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear. We evaluated the ability of the RESP score to predict survival for patients with both non-COVID 19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS managed with ECMO at our institution. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis found the RESP score reasonably predicted survival in patients with non-COVID-19 ARDS (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.83), but not patients with COVID-19 ARDS (AUC 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.66).

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.

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.

Evaluation of the discrimination and calibration of predictive scores of mortality in ECMO for patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The criteria for the selection of COVID-19 patients that could benefit most from ECMO organ support are yet to be defined. In this study, we evaluated the predictive performance of ECMO mortality predictive models in patients with COVID-19. We also performed a cost-benefit analysis depending on the mortality predicted probability. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in COVID-19 patients who received ECMO at two tertiary care hospitals between March 2020 to July 2021.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (Cox calibration), and accuracy of the prediction of death due to severe ARDS in V-V ECMO score (PRESERVE), the Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Score (RESP) score, and the PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy-Score (PRESET) score. In addition, we compared the RESP score with Plateau pressure instead of Peak pressure.

RESULTS

We included a total of 36 patients, 29 (80%) of them male and with a median (IQR) APACHE of 10 (8-15). The PRESET score had the highest discrimination (AUROCs 0.81 [95%CI 0.67-0.94]) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large 0.5 [95%CI -1.4 to 0.3]; calibration slope 2.2 [95%CI 0.7/3.7]). The RESP score with Plateau pressure had higher discrimination than the conventional RESP score. The cost per QALY in the USA, adjusted to life expectancy, was higher than USD 100 000 in patients older than 45 years with a PRESET > 10.

CONCLUSION

The PRESET score had the highest predictive performance and could help in the selection of patients that benefit most from this resource-demanding and highly invasive organ support.

Extracorporeal Support for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Adults

Extracorporeal Support for ARDS in AdultsThere is a subset of patients who develop severe ARDS for whom supportive care with mechanical ventilation is insufficient or possibly injurious. The use of ECMO as an adjunct to treat these patients is reviewed.