Effect of prone position in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The application of prone position (PP) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of application of PP during VV-ECMO in patients with ARDS. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of patients who met the Berlin definition of ARDS, and were supported with VV-ECMO. We divided the patients into two groups. The prone group included patients who were supported by VV-ECMO, and experienced at least one period of PP, while those without PP during VV-ECMO were defined as the supine group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:1 was introduced to minimize potential confounders. The primary outcomes were the complications of PP and the change of arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of the inspiration (PaO2/FiO2) ratio after PP. The secondary outcomes were hospital survival, ICU survival, and ECMO weaning rate. RESULTS: From April 2013 to October 2020, a total of 91 patients met the diagnostic criteria of ARDS who were supported with ECMO. 38 patients (41.8%) received at least one period of PP during ECMO, while 53 patients (58.2%) were maintained in supine position during ECMO. 22 minor complications were reported in the prone group and major complications were not found. The other ECMO-related complications were similar between two groups. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved after PP compared with before (174.50 (132.40-228.25) mmHg vs. 158.00 (122.93-210.33) mmHg, p < 0.001). PSM selected 25 pairs of patients with similar characteristics. Hospital survival or ICU survival did not differ between the two groups (40% vs. 28%, p = 0.370; 40% vs. 32%, p = 0.556). Significant difference of ECMO weaning rate between two groups was not found (56% vs. 32%, p = 0.087). CONCLUSIONS: PP during VV-ECMO was safe and could improve oxygenation. A large-scale and well-designed RCT is needed in the future.

Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers on the Inflammatory Response and Viral Clearance in COVID-19 Patients.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on the inflammatory response and viral clearance in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We included 229 patients with confirmed COVID-19 in a multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Propensity score matching at a ratio of 1:3 was introduced to eliminate potential confounders. Patients were assigned to the ACEI/ARB group (n = 38) or control group (n = 114) according to whether they were current users of medication. Results: Compared to the control group, patients in the ACEI/ARB group had lower levels of plasma IL-1ß [(6.20 ± 0.38) vs. (9.30 ± 0.31) pg/ml, P = 0.020], IL-6 [(31.86 ± 4.07) vs. (48.47 ± 3.11) pg/ml, P = 0.041], IL-8 [(34.66 ± 1.90) vs. (47.93 ± 1.21) pg/ml, P = 0.027], and TNF-α [(6.11 ± 0.88) vs. (12.73 ± 0.26) pg/ml, P < 0.01]. Current users of ACEIs/ARBs seemed to have a higher rate of vasoconstrictive agents (20 vs. 6%, P < 0.01) than the control group. Decreased lymphocyte counts [(0.76 ± 0.31) vs. (1.01 ± 0.45)*109/L, P = 0.027] and elevated plasma levels of IL-10 [(9.91 ± 0.42) vs. (5.26 ± 0.21) pg/ml, P = 0.012] were also important discoveries in the ACEI/ARB group. Patients in the ACEI/ARB group had a prolonged duration of viral shedding [(24 ± 5) vs. (18 ± 5) days, P = 0.034] and increased length of hospitalization [(24 ± 11) vs. (15 ± 7) days, P < 0.01]. These trends were similar in patients with hypertension. Conclusions: Our findings did not provide evidence for a significant association between ACEI/ARB treatment and COVID-19 mortality. ACEIs/ARBs might decrease proinflammatory cytokines, but antiviral treatment should be enforced, and hemodynamics should be monitored closely. Since the limited influence on the ACEI/ARB treatment, they should not be withdrawn if there was no formal contraindication.