Transfusion practice in patients receiving VV ECMO (PROTECMO): a prospective, multicentre, observational study.

BACKGROUND: In patients receiving venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion thresholds are usually higher than in other patients who are critically ill. Available guidelines suggest a restrictive approach, but do not provide specific recommendations on the topic. The main aim of this study was, in a short timeframe, to describe the actual values of haemoglobin and the rate and the thresholds for transfusion of PRBC during VV ECMO. METHODS: PROTECMO was a multicentre, prospective, cohort study done in 41 ECMO centres in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia. Consecutive adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were receiving VV ECMO were eligible for inclusion. Patients younger than 18 years, those who were not able to provide informed consent when required, and patients with an ECMO stay of less than 24 h were excluded. Our main aim was to monitor the daily haemoglobin concentration and the value at the point of PRBC transfusion, as well as the rate of transfusions. The practice in different centres was stratified by continent location and case volume per year. Adjusted estimates were calculated using marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting, accounting for baseline and time varying confounding. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2018, and Feb 22, 2021, 604 patients were enrolled (431 [71%] men, 173 [29%] women; mean age 50 years [SD 13·6]; and mean haemoglobin concentration at cannulation 10·9 g/dL [2·4]). Over 7944 ECMO days, mean haemoglobin concentration was 9·1 g/dL (1·2), with lower concentrations in North America and high-volume centres. PRBC were transfused on 2432 (31%) of days on ECMO, and 504 (83%) patients received at least one PRBC unit. Overall, mean pretransfusion haemoglobin concentration was 8·1 g/dL (1·1), but varied according to the clinical rationale for transfusion. In a time-dependent Cox model, haemoglobin concentration of less than 7 g/dL was consistently associated with higher risk of death in the intensive care unit compared with other higher haemoglobin concentrations (hazard ratio [HR] 2·99 [95% CI 1·95-4·60]); PRBC transfusion was associated with lower risk of death only when transfused when haemoglobin concentration was less than 7 g/dL (HR 0·15 [0·03-0·74]), although no significant effect in reducing mortality was reported for transfusions for other haemoglobin classes (7·0-7·9 g/dL, 8·0-9·9 g/dL, or higher than 10 g/dL). INTERPRETATION: During VV ECMO, there was no universally accepted threshold for transfusion, but PRBC transfusion was invariably associated with lower mortality only when done with haemoglobin concentration of less than 7 g/dL. FUNDING: Extracorporeal Life Support Organization.

Impact of Prone Position in COVID-19 Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVES: Prone positioning and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are both useful interventions in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Combining the two therapies is feasible and safe, but the effectiveness is not known. Our objective was to evaluate the potential survival benefit of prone positioning in venovenous ECMO patients cannulated for COVID-19-related ARDS. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a multicenter cohort. PATIENTS: Patients on venovenous ECMO who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or with a diagnosis on chest CT were eligible. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All patients on venovenous ECMO for respiratory failure in whom prone position status while on ECMO and in-hospital mortality were known were included. Of 647 patients in 41 centers, 517 were included. Median age was 55 (47-61), 78% were male and 95% were proned before cannulation. After cannulation, 364 patients (70%) were proned and 153 (30%) remained in the supine position for the whole ECMO run. There were 194 (53%) and 92 (60%) deaths in the prone and the supine groups, respectively. Prone position on ECMO was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio = 0.49 [0.29-0.84]; p = 0.010). In 153 propensity score-matched pairs, mortality rate was 49.7% in the prone position group versus 60.1% in the supine position group (p = 0.085). Considering only patients alive at decannulation, propensity-matched proned patients had a significantly lower mortality rate (22.4% vs 37.8%; p = 0.029) than nonproned patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prone position may be beneficial in patients supported by venovenous ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS but more data are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Effect of prone positioning on survival in adult patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Previous studies support the potential efficacy of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) for improving survival in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) cases. Prone positioning (PP) has been shown to improve the outcomes of moderate-to-severe ARDS patients. Few studies and no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effect of PP performed in ECMO patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effect of prone positioning for ARDS patients receiving vvECMO on survival. All authors were contacted to obtain complementary information not mentioned in the original articles. The main objective was to compare 28-day survival in vvECMO patients with PP to vvECMO patients without PP (controls). RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a combined population of 1836 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. PP was associated with a significant improvement in 28-day survival (503 survivors among 681 patients in the PP group [74%; 95% CI 71-77] vs. 450 survivors among 770 patients in the control group [58%, 95% CI 55-62]; RR 1.31 [95% CI 1.21-1.41]; I2 22% [95% CI 0-62%]; P < 0.0001). Survival was also improved in terms of other endpoints (60-day survival, 90-day survival, ICU survival, and hospital survival). In contrast, the duration of mechanical ventilation was increased in vvECMO patients with PP (mean difference 11.4 days [95% CI 9.2-13.5]; 0.64 [95% CI 0.50-0.78]; I2 8%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: According to this meta-analysis, survival was improved when prone positioning was used in ARDS patients receiving vvECMO. The impact of this combination on survival should be investigated in prospective randomized controlled trials.

Derivation and Validation of a Predictive Score for Respiratory Failure Worsening Leading to Secondary Intubation in COVID-19: The CERES Score.

Predictive scores assessing the risk of respiratory failure in COVID-19 mostly focused on the prediction of early intubation. A combined assessment of clinical parameters and biomarkers of endotheliopathy could allow to predict late worsening of acute respiratory failure (ARF), subsequently warranting intubation in COVID-19. Retrospective single-center derivation (n = 92 subjects) and validation cohorts (n = 59 subjects), including severe COVID-19 patients with non-invasive respiratory support, were assessed for at least 48 h following intensive care unit (ICU) admission. We used stepwise regression to construct the COVID endothelial and respiratory failure (CERES) score in a derivation cohort, and secondly assessed its accuracy for the prediction of late ARF worsening, requiring intubation within 15 days following ICU admission in an independent validation cohort. Platelet count, fraction of inspired oxygen, and endocan measured on ICU admission were identified as the top three predictive variables for late ARF worsening and subsequently included in the CERES score. The area under the ROC curve of the CERES score to predict late ARF worsening was calculated in the derivation and validation cohorts at 0.834 and 0.780, respectively. The CERES score is a simple tool with good performances to predict respiratory failure worsening, leading to secondary intubation, in COVID-19 patients.

Prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled individual patient data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning (PP) reduces mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The potential benefit of prone positioning maneuvers during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the use of prone positioning during extracorporeal support and ICU mortality in a pooled population of patients from previous European cohort studies. METHODS: We performed a pooled individual patient data analysis of European cohort studies which compared patients treated with prone positioning during ECMO (Prone group) to "conventional" ECMO management (Supine group) in patients with severe ARDS. RESULTS: 889 patients from five studies were included. Unadjusted ICU mortality was 52.8% in the Supine Group and 40.8% in the Prone group. At a Cox multiple regression analysis PP during ECMO was not significantly associated with a reduction of ICU mortality (HR 0.67 95% CI: 0.42-1.06). Propensity score matching identified 227 patients in each group. ICU mortality of the matched samples was 48.0% and 39.6% for patients in the Supine and Prone group, respectively (p = 0.072). CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of ARDS patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal support, the use of prone positioning during ECMO was not significantly associated with reduced ICU mortality. The impact of this procedure will have to be definitively assessed by prospective randomized controlled trials.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID 2019-Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Comparison between First and Second Waves (Stage 2).

We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients under veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) for COVID-19-Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (CARDS) between the first and the second wave. From 1 March 2020 to 30 November 2020, fifty patients requiring a V-V ECMO support for CARDS were included. Patient demographics, pre-ECMO, and day one, three, and seven on-ECMO data and outcomes were collected. The 90-day mortality was 11% higher during the second wave (18/26 (69%)) compared to the first wave (14/24 (58%) (p = 0.423). During the second wave, all of the patients were given steroids compared to 16.7% during the first wave (p < 0.001). The second wave's patients had been on non-invasive ventilation support for a longer period than in the first wave, with the median time from ICU admission to ECMO implantation being significantly higher (14 (11-20) vs. 7.7 (5-12) days; p < 0.001). Mechanical properties of the lung were worsened in the second wave's CARDS patients before ECMO implantation (median static compliance 20 (16-26) vs. 29 (25-37) mL/cmH2O; p < 0.001) and during ECMO days one, three, and seven. More bacterial co-infections before implantation and under ECMO were documented in the second wave group. Despite a better evidence-driven critical care management, we depicted fewer encouraging outcomes during the second wave.

SARS-CoV-2 Versus Influenza-associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Requiring Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support.

No study has compared patients with COVID-19-related refractory ARDS requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) to a relevant and homogenous control population. We aimed to compare the outcomes, the clinical characteristics, and the adverse effects of COVID-19 patients to a retrospective cohort of influenza patients. This retrospective case-control study was conducted in the ICUs of Lille and Rouen University Hospitals between January 2014 and May 2020. Two independent cohorts of patients with ARDS requiring V-V ECMO infected with either COVID-19 (n = 30) or influenza (n = 22) were compared. A 3-month follow-up was completed for all patients. Median age of COVID-19 and influenza patients was similar (57 vs. 55 years; p = 0.62). The 28-day mortality rate did not significantly differ between COVID-19 (43.3%) and influenza patients (50%, p = 0.63). There was no significant difference considering the cumulative incidence of ECMO weaning, hospital discharge, and 3-month survival. COVID-19 patients had a lower SAPS II score (58 [37-64] vs. 68 [52-83]; p = 0.039), a higher body mass index (33 [29-38] vs. 30 [26-34] kg/m2; p = 0.05), and were cannulated later (median delay between mechanical support and V-V ECMO 6 vs. 3 days, p = 0.004) compared with influenza patients. No difference in overall adverse events was observed between COVID-19 and influenza patients (70% vs. 95.5% respectively; p = 0.23). Despite differences in clinical presentation before V-V ECMO implantation, 28-day and 3-month mortality rate did not differ between COVID-19 and influenza patients. Considering the lack of specific treatment for COVID-19, V-V ECMO should be considered as a relevant rescue organ support.

Almitrine Infusion in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Single-Center Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: Treating acute respiratory failure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is challenging due to the lack of knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology. Hypoxemia may be explained in part by the loss of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction. The present study assessed the effect of almitrine, a selective pulmonary vasoconstrictor, on arterial oxygenation in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective observational study. SETTING: ICU of Lille Teaching Hospital, France, from February 27, 2020, to April 14, 2020. PATIENTS: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia confirmed by positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 and acute respiratory distress syndrome according to Berlin definition. Data focused on clinicobiological features, ventilator settings, therapeutics, outcomes, and almitrine-related adverse events. INTERVENTIONS: Almitrine was considered in patients with severe hypoxemia (Pao2/Fio2 ratio < 150 mm Hg) in addition to the recommended therapies, at an hourly IV delivery of 10 µg/kg/min. Comparative blood gases were done before starting almitrine trial and immediately after the end of the infusion. A positive response to almitrine was defined by an increase of Pao2/Fio2 ratio greater than or equal to 20% at the end of the infusion. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 169 patients were enrolled. Thirty-two patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome received an almitrine infusion trial. In most cases, almitrine was infused in combination with inhaled nitric oxide (75%). Twenty-one patients (66%) were responders. The median Pao2/Fio2 ratio improvement was 39% (9-93%) and differs significantly between the responders and nonresponders (67% [39-131%] vs 6% [9-16%], respectively; p < 0.0001). The 28-day mortality rates were 47.6% and 63.6% (p = 0.39) for the responders and nonresponders, respectively. Hemodynamic parameters remained similar before and after the trial, not suggesting acute cor pulmonale. CONCLUSIONS: Almitrine infusion improved oxygenation in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome without adverse effects. In a multistep clinical approach to manage severe hypoxemia in this population, almitrine could be an interesting therapeutic option to counteract the loss of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and redistribute blood flow away from shunting zones.

Caution With the Use of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Severely Ill Patients for the Treatment of SARS-CoV-2: A Report of Severe Jaundice.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential hepatotoxicity of lopinavir/ritonavir recently used in the treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort of critical patients in a teaching hospital: 12 treated with lopinavir/ritonavir and 30 in the standard-of-care group. RESULTS: Elevation occurred more frequently in patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (33% vs 6.7%). DISCUSSION: Caution is advised regarding the use of lopinavir/ritonavir in the most severe cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.