Prognostic factors associated with mortality among patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be considered for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who continue to deteriorate despite evidence-based therapies and lung-protective ventilation. The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization has emphasised the importance of patient selection; however, to better inform these decisions, a comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of the risk factors associated with poor outcomes is necessary. We aimed to summarise the association between pre-cannulation prognostic factors and risk of mortality in adult patients requiring venovenous ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from Dec 1, 2019, to April 14, 2022, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies involving adult patients who required ECMO for COVID-19-associated ARDS and for whom pre-cannulation prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality were evaluated. We conducted separate meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (uORs), adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), and mean differences, and excluded studies if these data could not be extracted. We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Our protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework registry, osf.io/6gcy2. FINDINGS: Our search identified 2888 studies, of which 42 observational cohort studies involving 17 449 patients were included. Factors that had moderate or high certainty of association with increased mortality included patient factors, such as older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2·27 [95% CI 1·63-3·16]), male sex (unadjusted odds ratio [uOR] 1·34 [1·20-1·49]), and chronic lung disease (aHR 1·55 [1·20-2·00]); pre-cannulation disease factors, such as longer duration of symptoms (mean difference 1·51 days [95% CI 0·36-2·65]), longer duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (uOR 1·94 [1·40-2·67]), higher partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (mean difference 4·04 mm Hg [1·64-6·44]), and higher driving pressure (aHR 2·36 [1·40-3·97]); and centre factors, such as less previous experience with ECMO (aOR 2·27 [1·28-4·05]. INTERPRETATION: The prognostic factors identified highlight the importance of patient selection, the effect of injurious lung ventilation, and the potential opportunity for greater centralisation and collaboration in the use of ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS. These factors should be carefully considered as part of a risk stratification framework when evaluating a patient for potential treatment with venovenous ECMO. FUNDING: None.

Rethinking ARDS After COVID-19. If a "Better" Definition Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

The definition of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has a somewhat controversial history, with some even questioning the need for the term ARDS. This controversy has been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic given the marked increase in the incidence of ARDS, the relatively new treatment modalities which do not fit neatly with the Berlin definition, and the difficulty in resource-limited settings in making the diagnosis. We propose that attempts to revise the definition of ARDS should apply the framework originally developed by psychologists and social scientists and used by other medical disciplines to generate and assess definitions of clinical syndromes that do not have gold standards. This framework is structured around measures of reliability, feasibility, and validity. Future revisions of the definition of ARDS should contain: the purpose, the methodology, and the framework for empirically testing any proposed definition. Attempts to revise critical illness syndromes' definitions usually hope to make them "better"; our recommendation is that future attempts use the same criteria used by other fields in defining what "better" means. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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.

The Potential Protective Role of GS-441524, a Metabolite of the Prodrug Remdesivir, in Vaccine Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Infections.

Cases of vaccine breakthrough, especially in variants of concern (VOCs) infections, are emerging in coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Due to mutations of structural proteins (SPs) (e.g., Spike proteins), increased transmissibility and risk of escaping from vaccine-induced immunity have been reported amongst the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Remdesivir was the first to be granted emergency use authorization but showed little impact on survival in patients with severe COVID-19. Remdesivir is a prodrug of the nucleoside analogue GS-441524 which is converted into the active nucleotide triphosphate to disrupt viral genome of the conserved non-structural proteins (NSPs) and thus block viral replication. GS-441524 exerts a number of pharmacological advantages over Remdesivir: (1) it needs fewer conversions for bioactivation to nucleotide triphosphate; (2) it requires only nucleoside kinase, while Remdesivir requires several hepato-renal enzymes, for bioactivation; (3) it is a smaller molecule and has a potency for aerosol and oral administration; (4) it is less toxic allowing higher pulmonary concentrations; (5) it is easier to be synthesized. The current article will focus on the discussion of interactions between GS-441524 and NSPs of VOCs to suggest potential application of GS-441524 in breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44231-022-00021-4.

Association of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and Lung Recruitment Selection Strategies with Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Rationale: The most beneficial positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown, and current practice is variable. Objectives: To compare the relative effects of different PEEP selection strategies on mortality in adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation methodology. Measurements and Main Results: We included 18 randomized trials (4,646 participants). Compared with a lower PEEP strategy, the posterior probability of mortality benefit from a higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) strategy was 99% (risk ratio [RR], 0.77; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.60-0.96, high certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of the esophageal pressure-guided strategy was 87% (RR, 0.77; 95% CrI, 0.48-1.22, moderate certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of a higher PEEP with brief LRM strategy was 96% (RR, 0.83; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.02, moderate certainty), and the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 77% (RR, 1.06; 95% CrI, 0.89-1.22, low certainty). Compared with a higher PEEP without LRM strategy, the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 99% (RR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.04-1.81, moderate certainty). Conclusions: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, higher PEEP without LRM is associated with a lower risk of death than lower PEEP. A higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy is associated with increased risk of death when compared with higher PEEP without LRM.

Respiratory indications for ECMO: focus on COVID-19.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly being used for patients with severe respiratory failure and has received particular attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Evidence from two key randomized controlled trials, a subsequent post hoc Bayesian analysis, and meta-analyses support the interpretation of a benefit of ECMO in combination with ultra-lung-protective ventilation for select patients with very severe forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During the pandemic, new evidence has emerged helping to better define the role of ECMO for patients with COVID-19. Results from large cohorts suggest outcomes during the first wave of the pandemic were similar to those in non-COVID-19 cohorts. As the pandemic continued, mortality of patients supported with ECMO has increased. However, the precise reasons for this observation are unclear. Known risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients are higher patient age, concomitant extra-pulmonary organ failures or malignancies, prolonged mechanical ventilation before ECMO, less experienced treatment teams and lower ECMO caseloads in the treating center. ECMO is a high resource-dependent support option; therefore, it should be used judiciously, and its availability may need to be constrained when resources are scarce. More evidence from high-quality research is required to better define the role and limitations of ECMO in patients with severe COVID-19.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation during Respiratory Pandemics: Past, Present, and Future.

The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of severe acute respiratory failure, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, has become better defined in recent years in light of emerging high-quality evidence and technological advances. Use of ECMO has consequently increased throughout many parts of the world. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, however, has highlighted deficiencies in organizational capacity, research capability, knowledge sharing, and resource use. Although governments, medical societies, hospital systems, and clinicians were collectively unprepared for the scope of this pandemic, the use of ECMO, a highly resource-intensive and specialized form of life support, presented specific logistical and ethical challenges. As the pandemic has evolved, there has been greater collaboration in the use of ECMO across centers and regions, together with more robust data reporting through international registries and observational studies. Nevertheless, centralization of ECMO capacity is lacking in many regions of the world, and equitable use of ECMO resources remains uneven. There are no widely available mechanisms to conduct large-scale, rigorous clinical trials in real time. In this critical care review, we outline lessons learned during COVID-19 and prior respiratory pandemics in which ECMO was used, and we describe how we might apply these lessons going forward, both during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in the future.

Renin-Angiotensin System Pathway Therapeutics Associated With Improved Outcomes in Males Hospitalized With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to sex and to report sex-related differences in renin-angiotensin system (RAS) components. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study comparing the effects of ARB or ACE inhibitors versus no ARBs or ACE inhibitors in males versus females. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 downregulates ACE-2, potentially increasing angiotensin II (a pro-inflammatory vasoconstrictor). Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may explain sex-based differences in responses to ARBs because the ACE2 gene is on the X chromosome. We recorded baseline characteristics, comorbidities, prehospital ARBs or ACE inhibitor treatment, use of organ support and mortality, and measured RAS components at admission and days 2, 4, 7, and 14 in a subgroup ( n = 46), recorded d -dimer ( n = 967), comparing males with females. SETTING: ARBs CORONA I is a multicenter Canadian observational cohort of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19. This analysis includes patients admitted to 10 large urban hospitals across the four most populated provinces. PATIENTS: One-thousand six-hundred eighty-six patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 (February 2020 to March 2021) for acute COVID-19 illness were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Males on ARBs before admission had decreased use of ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.52; p = 0.007) and vasopressors (aOR = 0.55; p = 0.011) compared with males not on ARBs or ACE inhibitors. No significant effects were observed in females for these outcomes. The test for interaction was significant for use of ventilation ( p = 0.006) and vasopressors ( p = 0.044) indicating significantly different responses to ARBs according to sex. Males had significantly higher plasma ACE-1 at baseline and angiotensin II at day 7 and 14 than females. CONCLUSIONS: ARBs use was associated with less ventilation and vasopressors in males but not females. Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may contribute to sex-based differences in outcomes and responses to ARBs in COVID-19.

The PANDORA Study: Prevalence and Outcome of Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in the Pre-COVID-19 Era.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the epidemiological characteristics, ventilator management, and outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in the era of lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV). DESIGN: A 6-month prospective, epidemiological, observational study. SETTING: A network of 22 multidisciplinary ICUs in Spain. PATIENTS: Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with AHRF (defined as Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg on positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] ≥ 5 cm H2O and Fio2 ≥ 0.3) and followed-up until hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were prevalence of AHRF and ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of ARDS, ventilatory management, and use of adjunctive therapies. During the study period, 9,803 patients were admitted: 4,456 (45.5%) received MV, 1,271 (13%) met AHRF criteria (1,241 were included into the study: 333 [26.8%] met Berlin ARDS criteria and 908 [73.2%] did not). At baseline, tidal volume was 6.9 ± 1.1 mL/kg predicted body weight, PEEP 8.4 ± 3.1 cm H2O, Fio2 0.63 ± 0.22, and plateau pressure 21.5 ± 5.4 cm H2O. ARDS patients received higher Fio2 and PEEP than non-ARDS (0.75 ± 0.22 vs 0.59 ± 0.20 cm H2O and 10.3 ± 3.4 vs 7.7 ± 2.6 cm H2O, respectively [p < 0.0001]). Adjunctive therapies were rarely used in non-ARDS patients. Patients without ARDS had higher ventilator-free days than ARDS (12.2 ± 11.6 vs 9.3 ± 9.7 d; p < 0.001). All-cause ICU mortality was similar in AHRF with or without ARDS (34.8% [95% CI, 29.7-40.2] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 32.3-38.7]; p = 0.837). CONCLUSIONS: AHRF without ARDS is a very common syndrome in the ICU with a high mortality that requires specific studies into its epidemiology and ventilatory management. We found that the prevalence of ARDS was much lower than reported in recent observational studies.

Personalized Ventilation to Multiple Patients Using a Single Ventilator: Description and Proof of Concept.

OBJECTIVES: To design and test a ventilator circuit that can be used for ventilation of two or more patients with a single ventilator, while allowing individualization of tidal volume, fractional concentration of oxygen, and positive end-expiratory pressure to each patient, irrespective of the other patient's respiratory system mechanics. DESIGN: Description and proof of concept studies. SETTINGS: Respiratory therapy laboratory. SUBJECTS: Ventilation of mechanical test lungs. INTERVENTIONS: Following a previously advocated design, we used components readily available in our hospital to assemble two "bag-in-a-box" breathing circuits. Each patient circuit consisted of a flexible bag in a rigid container connected via one-way valve to a test lung, along with an inline positive end-expiratory pressure valve, connected to the ventilator's expiratory limb. Compressed gas fills the bags during "patient" exhalation. During inspiration, gas from the ventilator, in pressure control mode, enters the containers and displaces gas from the bags to the test lungs. We varied tidal volume, "respiratory system" compliance, and positive end-expiratory pressure in one lung and observed the effect on the tidal volume of the other. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We were able to obtain different tidal volume, dynamic driving pressure, and positive end-expiratory pressure in the two lungs under widely different compliances in both lungs. Complete obstruction, or disconnection at the circuit connection to one test lung, had minimal effect (< 5% on average) on the ventilation to the co-ventilated lung. CONCLUSIONS: A secondary circuit "bag-in-the-box" system enables individualized ventilation of two lungs overcoming many of the concerns of ventilating more than one patient with a single ventilator.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults: evidence and implications.

Rates of survival with functional recovery for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are notably low. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is emerging as a modality to improve prognosis by augmenting perfusion to vital end-organs by utilizing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during conventional CPR and stabilizing the patient for interventions aimed at reversing the aetiology of the arrest. Implementing this emergent procedure requires a substantial investment in resources, and even the most successful ECPR programs may nonetheless burden healthcare systems, clinicians, patients, and their families with unsalvageable patients supported by extracorporeal devices. Non-randomized and observational studies have repeatedly shown an association between ECPR and improved survival, versus conventional CPR, for in-hospital cardiac arrest in select patient populations. Recently, randomized controlled trials suggest benefit for ECPR over standard resuscitation, as well as the feasibility of performing such trials, in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest within highly coordinated healthcare delivery systems. Application of these data to clinical practice should be done cautiously, with outcomes likely to vary by the setting and system within which ECPR is initiated. ECPR introduces important ethical challenges, including whether it should be considered an extension of CPR, at what point it becomes sustained organ replacement therapy, and how to approach patients unable to recover or be bridged to heart replacement therapy. The economic impact of ECPR varies by health system, and has the potential to outstrip resources if used indiscriminately. Ideally, studies should include economic evaluations to inform health care systems about the cost-benefits of this therapy.

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Severe Hypoxemia: Oxygenation Response and Outcome in Patients with COVID-19.

Rationale: The "Berlin definition" of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) does not allow inclusion of patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, several articles have proposed that criteria for defining ARDS should be broadened to allow inclusion of patients receiving HFNO. Objectives: To compare the proportion of patients fulfilling ARDS criteria during HFNO and soon after intubation, and 28-day mortality between patients treated exclusively with HFNO and patients transitioned from HFNO to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: From previously published studies, we analyzed patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who had PaO2/FiO2 of ⩽300 while treated with ⩾40 L/min HFNO, or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with positive end-expiratory pressure of ⩾5 cm H2O (comparator). In patients transitioned from HFNO/NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), we compared ARDS severity during HFNO/NIV and soon after IMV. We compared 28-day mortality in patients treated exclusively with HFNO/NIV versus patients transitioned to IMV. Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 184 and 131 patients receiving HFNO or NIV, respectively. A total of 112 HFNO and 69 NIV patients transitioned to IMV. Of those, 104 (92.9%) patients on HFNO and 66 (95.7%) on NIV continued to have PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 under IMV. Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on HFNO was 4.2% (3/72), whereas in patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV, it was 28.6% (32/112) (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on NIV was 1.6% (1/62), whereas in patients who transitioned from NIV to IMV, it was 44.9% (31/69) (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 19.0% (35/184) and 24.4% (32/131) for HFNO and NIV, respectively (P = 0.2479). Conclusions: Broadening the ARDS definition to include patients on HFNO with PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 may identify patients at earlier stages of disease but with lower mortality.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: evolving outcomes from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

BACKGROUND: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of patients with COVID-19 has changed and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased. We aimed to examine patient selection, treatments, outcomes, and ECMO centre characteristics over the course of the pandemic to date. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and COVID-19 Addendum to compare three groups of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥16 years). At early-adopting centres-ie, those using ECMO support for COVID-19 throughout 2020-we compared patients who started ECMO on or before May 1, 2020 (group A1), and between May 2 and Dec 31, 2020 (group A2). Late-adopting centres were those that provided ECMO for COVID-19 only after May 1, 2020 (group B). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality in a time-to-event analysis assessed 90 days after ECMO initiation. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to compare the patient and centre-level adjusted relative risk of mortality among the groups. FINDINGS: In 2020, 4812 patients with COVID-19 received ECMO across 349 centres within 41 countries. For early-adopting centres, the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO initiation was 36·9% (95% CI 34·1-39·7) in patients who started ECMO on or before May 1 (group A1) versus 51·9% (50·0-53·8) after May 1 (group A2); at late-adopting centres (group B), it was 58·9% (55·4-62·3). Relative to patients in group A2, group A1 patients had a lower adjusted relative risk of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO (hazard ratio 0·82 [0·70-0·96]), whereas group B patients had a higher adjusted relative risk (1·42 [1·17-1·73]). INTERPRETATION: Mortality after ECMO for patients with COVID-19 worsened during 2020. These findings inform the role of ECMO in COVID-19 for patients, clinicians, and policy makers. FUNDING: None.

Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Children at the Start of COVID-19 Outbreak: A Nationwide Experience.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, and observational study with the aim of describing physiological characteristics, respiratory management, and outcomes of children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) from different etiologies receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) compared with those affected by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria: 9 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 19 patients without COVID-19. Non-COVID-19 patients had more pre-existing comorbidities (78.9% vs. 44.4%) than COVID-19 patients. At AHRF onset, non-COVID-19 patients had worse oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 = 95 mmHg (65.5-133) vs. 150 mmHg (105-220), p = 0.04), oxygenation index = 15.9 (11-28.4) vs. 9.3 (6.7-10.6), p = 0.01), and higher PaCO2 (48 mmHg (46.5-63) vs. 41 mmHg (40-45), p = 0.07, that remained higher at 48 h: 54 mmHg (43-58.7) vs. 41 (38.5-45.5), p = 0.03). In 12 patients (5 COVID-19 and 7 non-COVID-19), AHRF evolved to pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). All non-COVID-19 patients had severe PARDS, while 3 out of 5 patients in the COVID-19 group had mild or moderate PARDS. Overall Pediatric Intensive Care Medicine (PICU) mortality was 14.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Children with AHRF due to SARS-CoV2 infection had fewer comorbidities and better oxygenation than patients with non-COVID-19 AHRF. In this study, progression to severe PARDS was rarely observed in children with COVID-19.