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.

Same but Different-ECMO in COVID-19 and ARDS of Other Etiologies. Comparison of Survival Outcomes and Management in Different ARDS Groups.

Background: COVID-19 has led to increased numbers of patients in need of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, but knowledge on management in comparison to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is still lacking. We analyzed venovenous ECMO management and survival outcomes in patients with COVID-19 in comparison to influenza ARDS and pulmonary ARDS of other origin. Results: Retrospective analysis of prospective venovenous ECMO registry-based data collection was performed. One hundred consecutive venovenous ECMO patients with severe ARDS were included (41 COVID-19, 24 influenza A, 35 ARDS of other etiologies). Patients with COVID-19 had higher BMI (body mass index), lower SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) and APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) scores, lower C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels and less vasoactive support at ECMO initiation. Significantly more patients were mechanically ventilated for more than 7 days prior to ECMO initiation in the COVID-19 group, however they were ventilated with lower tidal volumes and more often received additional rescue therapies prior to and on ECMO. COVID-19 patients had significantly more barotrauma and thrombotic events on ECMO. There were no differences in weaning of ECMO, however duration of ECMO runs and ICU length of stay was significantly longer in the COVID-19 group. The leading cause of death in the COVID-19 group was irreversible respiratory failure, while uncontrolled sepsis and multiorgan failure were leading causes in the other 2 groups. All patients who survived ICU treatment were discharged out of hospital, and there were no differences in survival among groups at 180 days. Conclusions: Survival outcomes of venovenous ECMO patients do not differ between COVID-19 and ARDS of other pulmonary etiologies. ARDS guidelines were in greater proportion adhered to in COVID-19 patients, with, however, longer time to ECMO initiation. COVID-19 ARDS seems specific as a more single-organ disease with longer ECMO duration and irreversible respiratory failure as a main cause of ICU mortality.

Lung Transplantation for End-Stage Respiratory Failure After Severe COVID-19: A Report of 2 Cases.

We report 2 cases of bilateral lung transplantation for nonresolving coronavirus disease 2019 associated respiratory failure. In the first patient, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection caused acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring prolonged extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support; in the second patient, coronavirus disease 2019 resulted in irreversible pulmonary fibrosis requiring only ventilatory support. The 2 cases represent the 2 ends of the spectrum showing significant differences in preoperative and postoperative courses.

Sigh in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. INTERPRETATION: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.