Expert consensus statement on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO for COVID-19 severe ARDS: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The high-quality evidence on managing COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is insufficient. Furthermore, there is little consensus on allocating ECMO resources when scarce. The paucity of evidence and the need for guidance on controversial topics required an international expert consensus statement to understand the role of ECMO in COVID-19 better. Twenty-two international ECMO experts worldwide work together to interpret the most recent findings of the evolving published research, statement formulation, and voting to achieve consensus. OBJECTIVES: To guide the next generation of ECMO practitioners during future pandemics on tackling controversial topics pertaining to using ECMO for patients with COVID-19-related severe ARDS. METHODS: The scientific committee was assembled of five chairpersons with more than 5 years of ECMO experience and a critical care background. Their roles were modifying and restructuring the panel's questions and, assisting with statement formulation in addition to expert composition and literature review. Experts are identified based on their clinical experience with ECMO (minimum of 5 years) and previous academic activity on a global scale, with a focus on diversity in gender, geography, area of expertise, and level of seniority. We used the modified Delphi technique rounds and the nominal group technique (NGT) through three face-to-face meetings and the voting on the statement was conducted anonymously. The entire process was planned to be carried out in five phases: identifying the gap of knowledge, validation, statement formulation, voting, and drafting, respectively. RESULTS: In phase I, the scientific committee obtained 52 questions on controversial topics in ECMO for COVID-19, further reviewed for duplication and redundancy in phase II, resulting in nine domains with 32 questions with a validation rate exceeding 75% (Fig. 1). In phase III, 25 questions were used to formulate 14 statements, and six questions achieved no consensus on the statements. In phase IV, two voting rounds resulted in 14 statements that reached a consensus are included in four domains which are: patient selection, ECMO clinical management, operational and logistics management, and ethics. CONCLUSION: Three years after the onset of COVID-19, our understanding of the role of ECMO has evolved. However, it is incomplete. Tota14 statements achieved consensus; included in four domains discussing patient selection, clinical ECMO management, operational and logistic ECMO management and ethics to guide next-generation ECMO providers during future pandemic situations.

Hemorrhage, Disseminated Intravascular Coagulopathy, and Thrombosis Complications Among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An International COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and outcomes associated with hemorrhage, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, and thrombosis (HECTOR) complications in ICU patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Two hundred twenty-nine ICUs across 32 countries. PATIENTS: Adult patients (≥ 16 yr) admitted to participating ICUs for severe COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: HECTOR complications occurred in 1,732 of 11,969 study eligible patients (14%). Acute thrombosis occurred in 1,249 patients (10%), including 712 (57%) with pulmonary embolism, 413 (33%) with myocardial ischemia, 93 (7.4%) with deep vein thrombosis, and 49 (3.9%) with ischemic strokes. Hemorrhagic complications were reported in 579 patients (4.8%), including 276 (48%) with gastrointestinal hemorrhage, 83 (14%) with hemorrhagic stroke, 77 (13%) with pulmonary hemorrhage, and 68 (12%) with hemorrhage associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannula site. Disseminated intravascular coagulation occurred in 11 patients (0.09%). Univariate analysis showed that diabetes, cardiac and kidney diseases, and ECMO use were risk factors for HECTOR. Among survivors, ICU stay was longer (median days 19 vs 12; p < 0.001) for patients with versus without HECTOR, but the hazard of ICU mortality was similar (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.92-1.12; p = 0.784) overall, although this hazard was identified when non-ECMO patients were considered (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.25; p = 0.015). Hemorrhagic complications were associated with an increased hazard of ICU mortality compared to patients without HECTOR complications (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.45; p = 0.002), whereas thrombosis complications were associated with reduced hazard (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.99, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: HECTOR events are frequent complications of severe COVID-19 in ICU patients. Patients receiving ECMO are at particular risk of hemorrhagic complications. Hemorrhagic, but not thrombotic complications, are associated with increased ICU mortality.

Morbid obesity's impact on COVID-19 patients requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: The covid-19 critical care consortium database review.

Introduction: Obesity is associated with a worse prognosis in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Veno-venous (V-V) Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) can be a rescue option, however, the direct impact of morbid obesity in this select group of patients remains unclear.Methods: This is an observational study of critically ill adults with COVID-19 and ARDS supported by V-V ECMO. Data are from 82 institutions participating in the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium international registry. Patients were admitted between 12 January 2020 to 27 April 2021. They were stratified based on Body Mass Index (BMI) at 40 kg/m2. The endpoint was survival to hospital discharge.Results: Complete data available on 354 of 401 patients supported on V-V ECMO. The characteristics of the high BMI (>40 kg/m2) and lower BMI (≤40 kg/m2) groups were statistically similar. However, the 'high BMI' group were comparatively younger and had a lower APACHE II score. Using survival analysis, older age (Hazard Ratio, HR 1.49 per-10-years, CI 1.25-1.79) and higher BMI (HR 1.15 per-5 kg/m2 increase, CI 1.03-1.28) were associated with a decreased patient survival. A safe BMI threshold above which V-V ECMO would be prohibitive was not apparent and instead, the risk of an adverse outcome increased linearly with BMI.Conclusion: In COVID-19 patients with severe ARDS who require V-V ECMO, there is an increased risk of death associated with age and BMI. The risk is linear and there is no BMI threshold beyond which the risk for death greatly increases.

Risk of COVID‐19 infection among mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation team

Background and Aim The transport of coronavirus‐2019 (COVID‐19) patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a challenging situation, especially for healthcare workers (HCWs), due to the risk of cross‐infection. Hence, certain precautions are needed for their safety. The study aims to evaluate the risk of COVID‐19 transmission to HCWs who transport COVID‐19 patients on ECMO device. Methods A retrospective review of adult patients with COVID‐19 infection supported with ECMO and transported by ground route to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) at Hamad General Hospital (HGH) and a survey of HCWs involved in those cases. Results A total of 63 HCWs of the mobile ECMO team were exposed to COVID‐19‐positive patients on 199 occasions. HCWs exposure time was nearly 110 h, and the total transport distance was 1018 km. During the study period, only two of the mobile ECMO HCWs tested positive for COVID‐19. There was zero incidence of transfer‐associated injuries or accidents to HCWs. Conclusions The risk of COVID‐19 cross‐infection to the mobile ECMO team seems to be very low, provided that strict infection prevention and control measures are applied.

Risk of COVID-19 infection among mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation team.

Background and Aim: The transport of coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a challenging situation, especially for healthcare workers (HCWs), due to the risk of cross-infection. Hence, certain precautions are needed for their safety. The study aims to evaluate the risk of COVID-19 transmission to HCWs who transport COVID-19 patients on ECMO device. Methods: A retrospective review of adult patients with COVID-19 infection supported with ECMO and transported by ground route to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) at Hamad General Hospital (HGH) and a survey of HCWs involved in those cases. Results: A total of 63 HCWs of the mobile ECMO team were exposed to COVID-19-positive patients on 199 occasions. HCWs exposure time was nearly 110 h, and the total transport distance was 1018 km. During the study period, only two of the mobile ECMO HCWs tested positive for COVID-19. There was zero incidence of transfer-associated injuries or accidents to HCWs. Conclusions: The risk of COVID-19 cross-infection to the mobile ECMO team seems to be very low, provided that strict infection prevention and control measures are applied.

Impact of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Service on Burnout Development in Eight Intensive Care Units. A National Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at investigating the effects of an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) service on Burnout syndrome (BOS) development in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: The authors conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTINGS: Eight ICUs within 5 tertiary hospitals in 1 country. PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care practitioners (nurses, physicians, and respiratory therapists). INTERVENTION: Using an online questionnaire, the Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel. In addition, demographic variables, workload, salary satisfaction, and caring for COVID-19 patients were assessed. Participants were divided based on working in an ICU with ECMO (ECMO-ICU) and without (non-ECMO-ICU) ECMO service, and burnout status (burnout and no burnout). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The response rate for completing the questionnaire was 36.4% (445/1,222). Male patients represented 53.7% of the participants. The overall prevalence of burnout was 64.5%. The overall burnout prevalence did not differ between ECMO- and non-ECMO-ICU groups (64.5% and 63.7, respectively). However, personal accomplishment (PA) score was significantly lower among ECMO-ICU personnel compared with those in a non-ECMO-ICU (42.7% v 52.6, p = 0.043). Significant predictors of burnout included profession (nurse or physician), acquiring COVID-19 infection, knowing other practitioners who were infected with COVID-19, salary dissatisfaction, and extremes of workload. CONCLUSION: Burnout was equally prevalent among participants from ECMO- and non-ECMO-ICU, but PA was lower among participants in the ICU with an ECMO service. The reported high prevalence of burnout, and its predictors, requires special attention to try to reduce its occurrence.

Mobile Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Covid-19 Does Not Pose Extra Risk to Transport Team.

Previous experience has shown that transporting patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a safe and effective mode of transferring critically ill patients requiring maximum mechanical ventilator support to a quaternary care center. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic posed new challenges. This is a multicenter, retrospective study of 113 patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, cannulated at an outside hospital and transported on ECMO to an ECMO center. This was performed by a multidisciplinary mobile ECMO team consisting of physicians for cannulation, critical care nurses, and an ECMO specialist or perfusionist, along with a driver or pilot. Teams practised strict airborne contact precautions with eyewear while caring for the patient and were in standard Personal Protective Equipment. The primary mode of transportation was ground. Ten patients were transported by air. The average distance traveled was 40 miles (SD ±56). The average duration of transport was 133 minutes (SD ±92). When stratified by mode of transport, the average distance traveled for ground transports was 36 miles (SD ±52) and duration was 136 minutes (SD ±93). For air, the average distance traveled was 66 miles (SD ±82) and duration was 104 minutes (SD ±70). There were no instances of transport-related adverse events including pump failures, cannulation complications at outside hospital, or accidental decannulations or dislodgements in transit. There were no instances of the transport team members contracting COVID-19 infection within 21 days after transport. By adhering to best practices and ACE precautions, patients with COVID-19 can be safely cannulated at an outside hospital and transported to a quaternary care center without increased risk to the transport team.