Respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The association of respiratory mechanics, particularly respiratory system static compliance (CRS), with severity of hypoxaemia in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been widely debated, with some studies reporting distinct ARDS phenotypes based on CRS. Ascertaining whether such phenotypes exist is important, because they might indicate the need for ventilation strategies that differ from those used in patients with ARDS due to other causes. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between Dec 1, 2019, and March 14, 2022, we evaluated respiratory system mechanics, ventilator parameters, gas exchange parameters, and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Among 11 356 patients in 37 studies, mean reported CRS, measured close to the time of endotracheal intubation, was 35·8 mL/cm H2O (95% CI 33·9-37·8; I2=96·9%, τ2=32·6). Pooled mean CRS was normally distributed. Increasing ARDS severity (assessed by PaO2/FiO2 ratio as mild, moderate, or severe) was associated with decreasing CRS. We found no evidence for distinct CRS-based clinical phenotypes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, and we therefore conclude that no change in conventional lung-protective ventilation strategies is warranted. Future studies should explore the personalisation of mechanical ventilation strategies according to factors including respiratory system mechanics and haemodynamic status in patients with ARDS.

Venovenous extracorporeal CO2 removal to support ultraprotective ventilation in moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A strategy that limits tidal volumes and inspiratory pressures, improves outcomes in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) may facilitate ultra-protective ventilation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venovenous ECCO2R in supporting ultra-protective ventilation in moderate-to-severe ARDS. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were interrogated for studies (2000-2021) reporting venovenous ECCO2R use in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Studies reporting ≥10 adult patients in English language journals were included. Ventilatory parameters after 24 h of initiating ECCO2R, device characteristics, and safety outcomes were collected. The primary outcome measure was the change in driving pressure at 24 h of ECCO2R therapy in relation to baseline. Secondary outcomes included change in tidal volume, gas exchange, and safety data. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting 421 patients (PaO2:FiO2 141.03 mmHg) were included. Extracorporeal blood flow rates ranged from 0.35-1.5 L/min. Random effects modelling indicated a 3.56 cmH2O reduction (95%-CI: 3.22-3.91) in driving pressure from baseline (p < .001) and a 1.89 mL/kg (95%-CI: 1.75-2.02, p < .001) reduction in tidal volume. Oxygenation, respiratory rate and PEEP remained unchanged. No significant interactions between driving pressure reduction and baseline driving pressure, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide or PaO2:FiO2 ratio were identified in metaregression analysis. Bleeding and haemolysis were the commonest complications of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Venovenous ECCO2R permitted significant reductions in ∆P in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Heterogeneity amongst studies and devices, a paucity of randomised controlled trials, and variable safety reporting calls for standardisation of outcome reporting. Prospective evaluation of optimal device operation and anticoagulation in high quality studies is required before further recommendations can be made.

Evolving outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used extensively for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Reports early in the pandemic suggested that mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO was comparable to non-COVID-19-related ARDS. However, subsequent reports suggested that mortality appeared to be increasing over time. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, to characterise changes in mortality over time and elucidate risk factors for poor outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis (CRD42021271202), searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases, from 1 December 2019 to 26 January 2022, for studies reporting on mortality among adults with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. We also captured hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and ECMO, as well as complications of ECMO. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and evaluated certainty of pooled estimates using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Of 4522 citations, we included 52 studies comprising 18,211 patients in the meta-analysis. The pooled mortality rate among patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO was 48.8% (95% confidence interval 44.8-52.9%, high certainty). Mortality was higher among studies which enrolled patients later in the pandemic as opposed to earlier (1st half 2020: 41.2%, 2nd half 2020: 46.4%, 1st half 2021: 62.0%, 2nd half 2021: 46.5%, interaction p value = 0.0014). Predictors of increased mortality included age, the time of final patient enrolment from 1 January 2020, and the proportion of patients receiving corticosteroids, and reduced duration of ECMO run. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate for patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS has increased as the pandemic has progressed. The reasons for this are likely multifactorial; however, as outcomes for these patients evolve, the decision to initiate ECMO should include the best contextual estimate of mortality at the time of ECMO initiation.

Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Myopericarditis is a rare complication of vaccination. However, there have been increasing reports of myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, especially among adolescents and young adults. We aimed to characterise the incidence of myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, and compare this with non-COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching four international databases from Jan 1, 1947, to Dec 31, 2021, for studies in English reporting on the incidence of myopericarditis following vaccination (the primary outcome). We included studies reporting on people in the general population who had myopericarditis in temporal relation to receiving vaccines, and excluded studies on a specific subpopulation of patients, non-human studies, and studies in which the number of doses was not reported. Random-effects meta-analyses (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted, and the intra-study risk of bias (Joanna Briggs Institute checklist) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach) were assessed. We analysed the difference in incidence of myopericarditis among subpopulations, stratifying by the type of vaccine (COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19) and age group (adult vs paediatric). Among COVID-19 vaccinations, we examined the effect of the type of vaccine (mRNA or non-mRNA), sex, age, and dose on the incidence of myopericarditis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021275477). FINDINGS: The overall incidence of myopericarditis from 22 studies (405 272 721 vaccine doses) was 33·3 cases (95% CI 15·3-72·6) per million vaccine doses, and did not differ significantly between people who received COVID-19 vaccines (18·2 [10·9-30·3], 11 studies [395 361 933 doses], high certainty) and those who received non-COVID-19 vaccines (56·0 [10·7-293·7], 11 studies [9 910 788 doses], moderate certainty, p=0·20). Compared with COVID-19 vaccination, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher following smallpox vaccinations (132·1 [81·3-214·6], p<0·0001) but was not significantly different after influenza vaccinations (1·3 [0·0-884·1], p=0·43) or in studies reporting on various other non-smallpox vaccinations (57·0 [1·1-3036·6], p=0·58). Among people who received COVID-19 vaccines, the incidence of myopericarditis was significantly higher in males (vs females), in people younger than 30 years (vs 30 years or older), after receiving an mRNA vaccine (vs non-mRNA vaccine), and after a second dose of vaccine (vs a first or third dose). INTERPRETATION: The overall risk of myopericarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is low. However, younger males have an increased incidence of myopericarditis, particularly after receiving mRNA vaccines. Nevertheless, the risks of such rare adverse events should be balanced against the risks of COVID-19 infection (including myopericarditis). FUNDING: None.

Convalescent Plasma for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (pinteraction = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning (PP) improves oxygenation and respiratory mechanics and is associated with lower mortality in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Despite this, some patients develop refractory hypoxemia and hypercapnia requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) support and are usually cared for in supine position. The physiologic and outcome benefits of routine PP of patients during VV ECMO remains unclear. Hence, we conducted the systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcome benefits of PP for patients with ARDS being treated with VV ECMO. METHODS: After registration with PROSPERO (CRD42020199723), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies that reported PP in more than 10 adult patients supported with VV ECMO from origin to 1 March 2021. Studies were reviewed for quality using appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird) was used. The primary outcome of interest was cumulative survival. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) and ECMO duration. Changes in arterial blood gas (ABG) values, ventilator mechanics and complication rates were also studied. RESULTS: Of 812 potentially relevant publications, 12 studies (640 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Due to overlapping study populations, 11 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Cumulative survival in patients that underwent PP was 57% (95% CI 41.9-71.4, high certainty). Patients that underwent PP had longer ICU LOS (+ 14.5 days, 95% CI 3.4-25.7, p = 0.01) and ECMO duration (+ 9.6 days, 95% CI 5.5-13.7, p < 0.0001). After PP, patients had significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower PaCO2 and reduced ventilator driving pressure, and no major complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: PP during VV ECMO appears safe with a cumulative survival of 57% and may result in longer ECMO runs and ICU LOS. However, evidence from appropriately designed randomized trials is needed prior to widespread adoption of PP on VV ECMO.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO. RESULTS: We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3-42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7-40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4-18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5-82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627.