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.

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.

Tracheostomy Practices and Outcomes in Children During Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVES: Children receiving prolonged extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support may benefit from tracheostomy during ECMO by facilitating rehabilitation; however, the procedure carries risks, especially hemorrhagic complications. Knowledge of tracheostomy practices and outcomes of ECMO-supported children who undergo tracheostomy on ECMO may inform decision-making. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: ECMO centers contributing to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. PATIENTS: Children from birth to 18 years who received ECMO support for greater than or equal to 7 days for respiratory failure from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred eighty-five children received at least 7 days of ECMO support for respiratory failure. The median duration of ECMO support was 13.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 9.3-19.9 d), and inhospital mortality was 38.7% (1,426/3,685). A tracheostomy was placed during ECMO support in 94/3,685 (2.6%). Of those who received a tracheostomy on ECMO, the procedure was performed at a median 13.2 days (IQR, 6.3-25.9 d) after initiation of ECMO. Surgical site bleeding was documented in 26% of children who received a tracheostomy (12% after tracheostomy placement). Among children who received a tracheostomy, the median duration of ECMO support was 24.2 days (IQR, 13.0-58.7 d); inhospital mortality was 30/94 (32%). Those that received a tracheostomy before 14 days on ECMO were older (median age, 15.8 yr [IQR, 4.7-15.5] vs 11.7 yr [IQR, 11.5-17.3 yr]; p =0.002) and more likely to have been supported on venovenous-ECMO (84% vs 52%; p = 0.001). Twenty-two percent (11/50) of those who received a tracheostomy before 14 days died in the hospital, compared with 19/44 (43%) of those who received a tracheostomy at 14 days or later (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomies during ECMO were uncommon in children. One in four patients who received a tracheostomy on ECMO had surgical site bleeding. Children who had tracheostomies placed after 14 days were younger and had worse outcomes, potentially representing tracheostomy as a "secondary" strategy for prolonged ECMO support.

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.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation during Respiratory Pandemics: Past, Present, and Future.

The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of severe acute respiratory failure, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, has become better defined in recent years in light of emerging high-quality evidence and technological advances. Use of ECMO has consequently increased throughout many parts of the world. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, however, has highlighted deficiencies in organizational capacity, research capability, knowledge sharing, and resource use. Although governments, medical societies, hospital systems, and clinicians were collectively unprepared for the scope of this pandemic, the use of ECMO, a highly resource-intensive and specialized form of life support, presented specific logistical and ethical challenges. As the pandemic has evolved, there has been greater collaboration in the use of ECMO across centers and regions, together with more robust data reporting through international registries and observational studies. Nevertheless, centralization of ECMO capacity is lacking in many regions of the world, and equitable use of ECMO resources remains uneven. There are no widely available mechanisms to conduct large-scale, rigorous clinical trials in real time. In this critical care review, we outline lessons learned during COVID-19 and prior respiratory pandemics in which ECMO was used, and we describe how we might apply these lessons going forward, both during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in the future.

Evolving outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used extensively for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Reports early in the pandemic suggested that mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO was comparable to non-COVID-19-related ARDS. However, subsequent reports suggested that mortality appeared to be increasing over time. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, to characterise changes in mortality over time and elucidate risk factors for poor outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis (CRD42021271202), searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases, from 1 December 2019 to 26 January 2022, for studies reporting on mortality among adults with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. We also captured hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and ECMO, as well as complications of ECMO. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and evaluated certainty of pooled estimates using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Of 4522 citations, we included 52 studies comprising 18,211 patients in the meta-analysis. The pooled mortality rate among patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO was 48.8% (95% confidence interval 44.8-52.9%, high certainty). Mortality was higher among studies which enrolled patients later in the pandemic as opposed to earlier (1st half 2020: 41.2%, 2nd half 2020: 46.4%, 1st half 2021: 62.0%, 2nd half 2021: 46.5%, interaction p value = 0.0014). Predictors of increased mortality included age, the time of final patient enrolment from 1 January 2020, and the proportion of patients receiving corticosteroids, and reduced duration of ECMO run. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate for patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS has increased as the pandemic has progressed. The reasons for this are likely multifactorial; however, as outcomes for these patients evolve, the decision to initiate ECMO should include the best contextual estimate of mortality at the time of ECMO initiation.

Tracheostomy Practices and Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 Supported by Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with COVID-19 has been supported by major healthcare organizations, yet the role of specific management strategies during ECMO requires further study. We sought to characterize tracheostomy practices, complications, and outcomes in ECMO-supported patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: ECMO centers contributing to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry. PATIENTS: Patients 16 years or older receiving venovenous ECMO for respiratory support for: 1) COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 (through October 2021) and 2) pre-COVID-19 viral pneumonia in 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7,047 patients who received ECMO support for acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19. A total of 32% of patients were recorded as having a tracheostomy procedure during ECMO, and 51% had a tracheostomy at some point during hospitalization. The frequency of tracheostomy was similar in pre-COVID-19 viral pneumonia, but tracheostomies were performed 3 days earlier compared with patients with COVID-19 (median 6.7 d [interquartile range [IQR], 3.0-12.0 d] vs 10.0 d [IQR, 5.0-16.5 d]; p < 0.001). More patients were mobilized with pre-COVID-19 viral pneumonia, but receipt of a tracheostomy during ECMO was associated with increased mobilization in both cohorts. More bleeding complications occurred in patients who received a tracheostomy, with 9% of patients with COVID-19 who received a tracheostomy reported as having surgical site bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomies are performed in COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO at rates similar to practices in pre-COVID-19 viral pneumonia, although later during the course of ECMO. Receipt of a tracheostomy was associated with increased patient mobilization. Overall mortality was similar between those who did and did not receive a tracheostomy.

Recall of clinical trial participation and attrition rates in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

PURPOSE: To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS). MATERIALS/METHODS: In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall. RESULTS: Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: evolving outcomes from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

BACKGROUND: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of patients with COVID-19 has changed and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased. We aimed to examine patient selection, treatments, outcomes, and ECMO centre characteristics over the course of the pandemic to date. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and COVID-19 Addendum to compare three groups of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥16 years). At early-adopting centres-ie, those using ECMO support for COVID-19 throughout 2020-we compared patients who started ECMO on or before May 1, 2020 (group A1), and between May 2 and Dec 31, 2020 (group A2). Late-adopting centres were those that provided ECMO for COVID-19 only after May 1, 2020 (group B). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality in a time-to-event analysis assessed 90 days after ECMO initiation. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to compare the patient and centre-level adjusted relative risk of mortality among the groups. FINDINGS: In 2020, 4812 patients with COVID-19 received ECMO across 349 centres within 41 countries. For early-adopting centres, the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO initiation was 36·9% (95% CI 34·1-39·7) in patients who started ECMO on or before May 1 (group A1) versus 51·9% (50·0-53·8) after May 1 (group A2); at late-adopting centres (group B), it was 58·9% (55·4-62·3). Relative to patients in group A2, group A1 patients had a lower adjusted relative risk of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO (hazard ratio 0·82 [0·70-0·96]), whereas group B patients had a higher adjusted relative risk (1·42 [1·17-1·73]). INTERPRETATION: Mortality after ECMO for patients with COVID-19 worsened during 2020. These findings inform the role of ECMO in COVID-19 for patients, clinicians, and policy makers. FUNDING: None.

Racial Bias in Pulse Oximetry Measurement Among Patients About to Undergo Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in 2019-2020: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Pulse oximeters may produce less accurate results in non-White patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do pulse oximeters detect arterial hypoxemia less effectively in Black, Hispanic, and/or Asian patients than in White patients in respiratory failure and about to undergo extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data on adult patients with respiratory failure readings 6 h before ECMO were provided by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. Data was collected from 324 centers between January 2019 and July 2020. Our primary analysis was of rates of occult hypoxemia-low arterial oxygen saturation (Sao2 ≤ 88%) on arterial blood gas measurement despite a pulse oximetry reading in the range of 92% to 96%. RESULTS: The rate of pre-ECMO occult hypoxemia, that is, arterial oxygen saturation (Sao2) ≤ 88%, was 10.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-15.3%) for 186 White patients with peripheral oxygen saturation (Spo2) of 92% to 96%; 21.5% (95% CI, 11.3%-35.3%) for 51 Black patients (P = .031 vs White); 8.6% (95% CI, 3.2%-17.7%) for 70 Hispanic patients (P = .693 vs White); and 9.2% (95% CI, 3.5%-19.0%) for 65 Asian patients (P = .820 vs White). Black patients with respiratory failure had a statistically significantly higher risk of occult hypoxemia with an OR of 2.57 (95% CI, 1.12-5.92) compared with White patients (P = .026). The risk of occult hypoxemia for Hispanic and Asian patients was equivalent to that of White patients. In a secondary analysis of patients with Sao2 ≤ 88% despite Spo2 > 96%, Black patients had more than three times the risk compared with White patients (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.12-11.10; P = .032). INTERPRETATION: Compared with White patients, the prevalence of occult hypoxemia was higher in Black patients than in White patients about to undergo ECMO for respiratory failure, but it was comparable in Hispanic and Asian patients compared with White patients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO. RESULTS: We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3-42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7-40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4-18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5-82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19: an international cohort study of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry.

BACKGROUND: Multiple major health organisations recommend the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, initial reports of ECMO use in patients with COVID-19 described very high mortality and there have been no large, international cohort studies of ECMO for COVID-19 reported to date. METHODS: We used data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry to characterise the epidemiology, hospital course, and outcomes of patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed COVID-19 who had ECMO support initiated between Jan 16 and May 1, 2020, at 213 hospitals in 36 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital death in a time-to-event analysis assessed at 90 days after ECMO initiation. We applied a multivariable Cox model to examine whether patient and hospital factors were associated with in-hospital mortality. FINDINGS: Data for 1035 patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO support were included in this study. Of these, 67 (6%) remained hospitalised, 311 (30%) were discharged home or to an acute rehabilitation centre, 101 (10%) were discharged to a long-term acute care centre or unspecified location, 176 (17%) were discharged to another hospital, and 380 (37%) died. The estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 37·4% (95% CI 34·4-40·4). Mortality was 39% (380 of 968) in patients with a final disposition of death or hospital discharge. The use of ECMO for circulatory support was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1·89, 95% CI 1·20-2·97). In the subset of patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory (venovenous) ECMO and characterised as having acute respiratory distress syndrome, the estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 38·0% (95% CI 34·6-41·5). INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO, both estimated mortality 90 days after ECMO and mortality in those with a final disposition of death or discharge were less than 40%. These data from 213 hospitals worldwide provide a generalisable estimate of ECMO mortality in the setting of COVID-19. FUNDING: None.