Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg ; 2023 Jun 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232482

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The clinical profile and outcomes of patients with Covid-19 who require veno-arterial or veno-venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO - VAV-ECMO) are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of these patients and to identify predictors of both favorable and unfavorable outcomes. METHODS: ECMOSARS is a multicenter, prospective, nationwide French registry enrolling patients who require VV/VA-ECMO in the context of Covid-19 infection (652 patients at 41 centers). We focused on 47 patients supported with VA- or VAV-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock. RESULTS: Median age was 49. 14% of patients had a prior diagnosis of heart failure. The most common etiologies of cardiogenic shock were acute pulmonary embolism (30%), myocarditis (28%), and acute coronary syndrome (4%). E-CPR (Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) occurred in 38%. In-hospital survival was 28% in the whole cohort, and 43% when E-CPR patients were excluded. ECMO cannulation was associated with significant improvements in pH and FiO2 on day one, but non-survivors showed significantly more severe acidosis and higher FiO2 than survivors at this point (p = 0.030 and p = 0.006). Other factors associated with death were greater age (p = 0.02), higher BMI (p = 0.03), E-CPR (p = 0.001), non-myocarditis etiology (p = 0.02), higher serum lactates (p = 0.004), epinephrine (but not noradrenaline) use before initiation of ECMO (p = 0.003), hemorrhagic complications (p = 0.001), greater transfusion requirements (p = 0.001), and more severe SAVE and SAFE scores (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest focused analysis of VA- and VAV-ECMO recipients in Covid-19. Although relatively rare, the need for temporary mechanical circulatory support in these patients is associated with poor prognosis. However, VA-ECMO remains a viable solution to rescue carefully selected patients. We identified factors associated with poor prognosis and suggest that E-CPR is not a reasonable indication for VA-ECMO in this population.

2.
Anesthesiology ; 136(5): 732-748, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764668

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite expanding use, knowledge on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support during the COVID-19 pandemic remains limited. The objective was to report characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in France and to identify pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation factors associated with in-hospital mortality. A hypothesis of similar mortality rates and risk factors for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was made. METHODS: The Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure and/or Heart failure related to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (ECMOSARS) registry included COVID-19 patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in France. This study analyzed patients included in this registry up to October 25, 2020, and supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure with a minimum follow-up of 28 days after cannulation. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 494 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients included in the registry, 429 were initially supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and followed for at least 28 days. The median (interquartile range) age was 54 yr (46 to 60 yr), and 338 of 429 (79%) were men. Management before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation included prone positioning for 411 of 429 (96%), neuromuscular blockage for 419 of 427 (98%), and NO for 161 of 401 (40%). A total of 192 of 429 (45%) patients were cannulated by a mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation unit. In-hospital mortality was 219 of 429 (51%), with a median follow-up of 49 days (33 to 70 days). Among pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation modifiable exposure variables, neuromuscular blockage use (hazard ratio, 0.286; 95% CI, 0.101 to 0.81) and duration of ventilation (more than 7 days compared to less than 2 days; hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.83) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Both age (per 10-yr increase; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.50) and total bilirubin at cannulation (6.0 mg/dl or more compared to less than 1.2 mg/dl; hazard ratio, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.09 to 6.5) were confounders significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality was higher than recently reported, but nearly half of the patients survived. A high proportion of patients were cannulated by a mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation unit. Several factors associated with mortality were identified. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support should be considered early within the first week of mechanical ventilation initiation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL