ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) can be a lifesaver. However, anticoagulation therapy is mandatory because the nonendothelial extracorporeal surface increases the risk of thromboembolic problems. Heparin is still the most common anticoagulant, but argatroban could be an alternative. This work investigates whether argatroban offers a therapeutic advantage over heparin during vvECMO. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent vvECMO for severe ARDS and received heparin or argatroban as anticoagulation therapy. Demographic variables, intensive care unit (ICU) treatment and outcome parameters were evaluated. The primary outcome parameter was the operating time of the membrane oxygenator normalized to the duration of vvECMO treatment. Secondary outcome parameters were transfusion requirements normalized to the duration of vvECMO therapy. RESULTS: Fifty seven patients from January 2019 to February 2021 underwent vvECMO and were included in this study. Thirty three patients received heparin and 24 patients argatroban as anticoagulatory therapy. The groups did not differ in demographics, ICU scoring systems, or comorbidities. Platelet counts and partial prothrombin time did not differ between the two groups during the first 6 days of vvECMO. The argatroban group had lower requirements for red blood cells, platelets and fresh frozen plasma. The mean runtime of the individual membrane oxygenator increased from 12.3 days (heparin group) to 16.6 days in the argatroban group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that argatroban can be considered as anticoagulant during vvECMO.
Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Oxygenators, Membrane , Retrospective Studies , Heparin/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic reached Germany in spring 2020. No proven treatment for SARS-CoV-2 was available at that time, especially for severe COVID-19-induced ARDS. We determined whether the infusion of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) would help to improve pulmonary function and overall outcome in patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS. We offered MSC infusion as an extended indication to all critically ill COVID-19 patients with a Horovitz index <100. We treated 5 out of 23 patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS with an infusion of MSCs. One million MSCs/kg body weight was infused over 30 minutes, and the process was repeated in 3 patients twice and in 2 patients 3 times. RESULT: Four out of 5 MSC-treated patients compared to 50% of control patients (9 out of 18) received ECMO support (80%). The MSC group showed a higher Murray score on admission than control patients, reflecting more severe pulmonary compromise (3.5 ± 0.2 versus 2.8 ± 0.3). MSC infusion was safe and well tolerated. The MSC group had a significantly higher Horovitz score on discharge than the control group. Compared to controls, patients with MSC treatment showed a significantly lower Murray score upon discharge than controls. In the MSC group, 4 out of 5 patients (80%) survived to discharge and exhibited good pulmonary function, whereas only 8 out of 18 patients (45%) in the control group survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: MSC infusion is a safe treatment for COVID-19 ARDS that improves pulmonary function and overall outcome in this patient population.