Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 82
Filter
2.
ASAIO J ; 2022 Nov 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2119145

ABSTRACT

Revised guidelines clarify indications for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Limited data exist to compare clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients to non-COVID-19-related ARDS patients when supported with ECMO. An observational propensity-matched study was performed to compare clinical and ECMO-related complications between COVID-19-related ARDS patients (COVID) and non-COVID-19-related ARDS (Control). COVID- patients cannulated from March 1st, 2020, through June 1st, 2021, were included and matched to patients from the historical cohort at our center from 2012 to 2020 based on age, body mass index (BMI), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, and duration ECMO run. The primary outcome was complications during ECMO therapy. A total of 56 patients were propensity matched 1:1 with a mean age of 40.9 years, BMI 32.1 kg/m2, APACHE II score of 26.6, and duration of ECMO support of 22.6 days. In total 18 COVID-19 patients were observed to have more major bleeding complications (18 vs. 9, p = 0.03). Although not statistically significant, they also had more strokes (6 vs. 3) and required more chest tubes (13 vs. 8). Inpatient mortality was not different. ECMO support in COVID-19 patients is associated with more major bleeding complications, strokes, and chest tube placements. The use of ECMO in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS appears to be associated with an increased risk of complications.

3.
Lancet Respir Med ; 2022 Oct 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2062043

ABSTRACT

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.

4.
J Patient Saf ; 2022 Aug 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1985192

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown how hospital- and systems-level factors have impacted patient safety in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand how the pandemic has exacerbated preexisting patient safety issues and created novel patient safety challenges in ICUs in the United States. METHODS: We performed a national, multi-institutional, mixed-methods survey of critical care clinicians to elicit experiences related to patient safety during the pandemic. The survey was disseminated via email through the Society of Critical Care Medicine listserv. Data were reported as valid percentages, compared by COVID caseload and peak of the pandemic; free-text responses were analyzed and coded for themes. RESULTS: We received 335 survey responses. On general patient safety, 61% felt that conditions were more hazardous when compared with the prepandemic period. Those who took care of mostly COVID-19 patients were more likely to perceive that care was more hazardous (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 2.49-9.59) compared with those who took care of mostly non-COVID-19 or no COVID-19 patients. In free-text responses, providers identified patient safety risks related to pandemic adaptations, such as ventilator-related lung injury, medication and diagnostic errors, oversedation, oxygen device removal, and falls. CONCLUSIONS: Increased COVID-19 case burden was significantly associated with perceptions of a less safe patient care environment by frontline ICU clinicians. Results of the qualitative analysis identified specific patient safety hazards in ICUs across the United States as downstream consequences of hospital and provider strain during periods of the COVID-19 pandemic.

5.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(10): 1326-1337, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1982111

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Pandemics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
8.
BMJ ; 377: e068723, 2022 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1896045

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional mechanical ventilation on outcomes of patients with covid-19 associated respiratory failure. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: 30 countries across five continents, 3 January 2020 to 29 August 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 7345 adults admitted to the intensive care unit with clinically suspected or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTIONS: ECMO in patients with a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio <80 mm Hg compared with conventional mechanical ventilation without ECMO. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was hospital mortality within 60 days of admission to the intensive care unit. Adherence adjusted estimates were calculated using marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting, accounting for competing events and for baseline and time varying confounding. RESULTS: 844 of 7345 eligible patients (11.5%) received ECMO at any time point during follow-up. Adherence adjusted mortality was 26.0% (95% confidence interval 24.5% to 27.5%) for a treatment strategy that included ECMO if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio decreased <80 mm Hg compared with 33.2% (31.8% to 34.6%) had patients received conventional treatment without ECMO (risk difference -7.1%, 95% confidence interval -8.2% to -6.1%; risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.82). In secondary analyses, ECMO was most effective in patients aged <65 years and with a PaO2/FiO2 <80 mm Hg or with driving pressures >15 cmH2O during the first 10 days of mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO was associated with a reduction in mortality in selected adults with covid-19 associated respiratory failure. Age, severity of hypoxaemia, and duration and intensity of mechanical ventilation were found to be modifiers of treatment effectiveness and should be considered when deciding to initiate ECMO in patients with covid-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Oxygen , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(12): 1382-1390, 2022 06 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1892012

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Perfusion ; : 2676591221096225, 2022 Jun 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1872076

ABSTRACT

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.

11.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 147, 2022 05 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862141

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
12.
Crit Care Med ; 50(9): 1360-1370, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1860940

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with COVID-19 has been supported by major healthcare organizations, yet the role of specific management strategies during ECMO requires further study. We sought to characterize tracheostomy practices, complications, and outcomes in ECMO-supported patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: ECMO centers contributing to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry. PATIENTS: Patients 16 years or older receiving venovenous ECMO for respiratory support for: 1) COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 (through October 2021) and 2) pre-COVID-19 viral pneumonia in 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7,047 patients who received ECMO support for acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19. A total of 32% of patients were recorded as having a tracheostomy procedure during ECMO, and 51% had a tracheostomy at some point during hospitalization. The frequency of tracheostomy was similar in pre-COVID-19 viral pneumonia, but tracheostomies were performed 3 days earlier compared with patients with COVID-19 (median 6.7 d [interquartile range [IQR], 3.0-12.0 d] vs 10.0 d [IQR, 5.0-16.5 d]; p < 0.001). More patients were mobilized with pre-COVID-19 viral pneumonia, but receipt of a tracheostomy during ECMO was associated with increased mobilization in both cohorts. More bleeding complications occurred in patients who received a tracheostomy, with 9% of patients with COVID-19 who received a tracheostomy reported as having surgical site bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomies are performed in COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO at rates similar to practices in pre-COVID-19 viral pneumonia, although later during the course of ECMO. Receipt of a tracheostomy was associated with increased patient mobilization. Overall mortality was similar between those who did and did not receive a tracheostomy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Tracheostomy/methods
13.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 141, 2022 05 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846858

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis. METHODS: We analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2 days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48 h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression. RESULTS: Data from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2 years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90 days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28 days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0-25) and 25 (IQR 7-26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0-87) and 87 (IQR 0-88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/therapeutic use , Propensity Score , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy
14.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(1): 1-15, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800370

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Adult , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy
15.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ; 36(8 Pt B): 3312-3317, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768933

ABSTRACT

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an established part of the treatment algorithm for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. An intense inflammatory response may cause an imbalance in the coagulation cascade making both thrombosis and bleeding common and notable features of the clinical management of these patients. Large observational and retrospective studies provide a better understanding of the pathophysiology and management of bleeding and thrombosis in COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO. Clinically significant bleeding, including intracerebral hemorrhage, is an independent predictor of mortality, and thrombosis (particularly pulmonary embolism) is associated with mortality, especially if occurring with right ventricular dysfunction. The incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is higher than the general patient cohort with acute respiratory distress syndrome or other indications for ECMO. The use of laboratory parameters to predict bleeding or thrombosis has a limited role. In this review, the authors discuss the complex pathophysiology of bleeding and thrombosis observed in patients with COVID-19 during ECMO support, and their effects on outcomes.


Subject(s)
Blood Coagulation Disorders , COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Thrombosis , Blood Coagulation Disorders/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Thrombosis/epidemiology
16.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(3): 307-312, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1751527

ABSTRACT

Extracorporeal haemoadsorption is increasingly being used for the removal of endotoxin or inflammatory cytokines in patients with septic shock or other severe inflammatory states. A reduction in excessively high levels of inflammatory mediators-and mitigation of the devastating clinical impact of severe inflammation-might be a sound rationale for extracorporeal haemoadsorption in critical care, but the evidence for beneficial effects is uncertain. Few randomised controlled trials have been undertaken, and they have not provided reliable evidence for routine use in clinical practice. No study has shown a survival benefit, and only a few studies have shown a significant effect on patients' blood cytokine concentrations. Nonetheless, some clinicians have encouraged the use of haemoadsorption devices, largely on the basis of incomplete data or contentious interpretations of the available data. Further research is required, particularly well designed, prospective clinical trials assessing relevant patient-centred outcomes, including mortality, before widespread adoption of this technology can be recommended.


Subject(s)
Shock, Septic , Critical Care , Cytokines , Humans , Inflammation Mediators , Prospective Studies , Shock, Septic/therapy
17.
Ann Neurol ; 91(6): 740-755, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1729093

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the time to recovery of command-following and associations between hypoxemia with time to recovery of command-following. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective, cohort study during the initial surge of the United States' pandemic (March-July 2020) we estimate the time from intubation to recovery of command-following, using Kaplan Meier cumulative-incidence curves and Cox proportional hazard models. Patients were included if they were admitted to 1 of 3 hospitals because of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), required endotracheal intubation for at least 7 days, and experienced impairment of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale motor score <6). RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients of the 795 patients recovered command-following. The median time to recovery of command-following was 30 days (95% confidence interval [CI] = 27-32 days). Median time to recovery of command-following increased by 16 days for patients with at least one episode of an arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2 ) value ≤55 mmHg (p < 0.001), and 25% recovered ≥10 days after cessation of mechanical ventilation. The time to recovery of command-following  was associated with hypoxemia (PaO2 ≤55 mmHg hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.46-0.68; PaO2 ≤70 HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.85-0.91), and each additional day of hypoxemia decreased the likelihood of recovery, accounting for confounders including sedation. These findings were confirmed among patients without any imagining evidence of structural brain injury (n = 199), and in a non-overlapping second surge cohort (N = 427, October 2020 to April 2021). INTERPRETATION: Survivors of severe COVID-19 commonly recover consciousness weeks after cessation of mechanical ventilation. Long recovery periods are associated with more severe hypoxemia. This relationship is not explained by sedation or brain injury identified on clinical imaging and should inform decisions about life-sustaining therapies. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:740-755.


Subject(s)
Brain Injuries , COVID-19 , Brain Injuries/complications , COVID-19/complications , Cohort Studies , Humans , Hypoxia , Retrospective Studies , Unconsciousness/complications
18.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(4): 480-481, 2022 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724050
19.
Ann Thorac Surg ; 114(1): 68-69, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1693919
20.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 28(1): 90-97, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672362

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To understand the potential role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), highlighting evolving practices and outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: The role for ECMO in COVID-19-related ARDS has evolved throughout the pandemic. Early reports of high mortality led to some to advocate for withholding ECMO in this setting. Subsequent data suggested mortality rates were on par with those from studies conducted prior to the pandemic. However, outcomes are evolving and mortality in these patients may be worsening with time. SUMMARY: ECMO has an established role in the treatment of severe forms of ARDS. Current data suggest adherence to the currently accepted algorithm for management of ARDS, including the use of ECMO. However, planning related to resource utilization and strain on healthcare systems are necessary to determine the feasibility of ECMO in specific regions at any given time. Utilization of national and local networks, pooling of resources and ECMO mobilization units are important to optimize access to ECMO as appropriate. Reported complications of ECMO in the setting of COVID-19-related ARDS have been predominantly similar to those reported in studies of non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Further high-quality research is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL