Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 67
Filter
Add filters

Year range
1.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 28(1): 50-59, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612730

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence rates are 2- to 5-fold higher among persons incarcerated in the United States than in the general population. PROGRAM OR POLICY: We describe an outbreak investigation of COVID-19 at a jail (jail A) in Alameda County during March 2020-March 2021. IMPLEMENTATION: To prevent COVID-19 cases among incarcerated persons and employees, staff at jail A and the county public health department worked to develop and recommend infection control measures implemented by jail A including, but not limited to, face covering use among incarcerated persons and staff; cohorting incarcerated persons at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 in dedicated housing units; quarantining all newly detained individuals for 14 days; and offering testing for all symptomatic incarcerated persons, newly incarcerated persons at day 2 and day 10, and all persons who resided in a housing unit where a COVID-19 case was detected. EVALUATION: A total of 571 COVID-19 cases were detected among incarcerated persons at jail A during March 2020-March 2021, which represented a total incidence of 280 per 1000 population, 5 times higher than the rate in Alameda County. Of the 571 cases among incarcerated persons, 557 (98%) were male; 415 (73%) were aged 18 to 40 years; 249 (44%) were Latino; and 180 (32%) were African American; 354 (62%) were not symptomatic; and 220 (39%) had no comorbidities. Less than 2% of infected incarcerated persons were hospitalized, and no deaths were reported. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 disproportionately impacted persons incarcerated at jail A, with higher numbers among Latinos and African Americans. Implementation of COVID-19 infection control and testing measures, and collaboration between public health, law enforcement, and health care providers may have, in part, led to reductions in morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 at jail A.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Jails , California/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Prisons , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
4.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 204(11): 1274-1285, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1546620

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Two distinct subphenotypes have been identified in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the presence of subgroups in ARDS associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is unknown. Objectives: To identify clinically relevant, novel subgroups in COVID-19-related ARDS and compare them with previously described ARDS subphenotypes. Methods: Eligible participants were adults with COVID-19 and ARDS at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups with baseline clinical, respiratory, and laboratory data serving as partitioning variables. A previously developed machine learning model was used to classify patients as the hypoinflammatory and hyperinflammatory subphenotypes. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between subgroups. Heterogeneity of treatment effect for corticosteroid use in subgroups was tested. Measurements and Main Results: From March 2, 2020, to April 30, 2020, 483 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS met study criteria. A two-class latent class analysis model best fit the population (P = 0.0075). Class 2 (23%) had higher proinflammatory markers, troponin, creatinine, and lactate, lower bicarbonate, and lower blood pressure than class 1 (77%). Ninety-day mortality was higher in class 2 versus class 1 (75% vs. 48%; P < 0.0001). Considerable overlap was observed between these subgroups and ARDS subphenotypes. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR cycle threshold was associated with mortality in the hypoinflammatory but not the hyperinflammatory phenotype. Heterogeneity of treatment effect to corticosteroids was observed (P = 0.0295), with improved mortality in the hyperinflammatory phenotype and worse mortality in the hypoinflammatory phenotype, with the caveat that corticosteroid treatment was not randomized. Conclusions: We identified two COVID-19-related ARDS subgroups with differential outcomes, similar to previously described ARDS subphenotypes. SARS-CoV-2 PCR cycle threshold had differential value for predicting mortality in the subphenotypes. The subphenotypes had differential treatment responses to corticosteroids.

6.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2021 Nov 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1533154
7.
Nat Med ; 27(4): 601-615, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517636

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the pathogen responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has resulted in global healthcare crises and strained health resources. As the population of patients recovering from COVID-19 grows, it is paramount to establish an understanding of the healthcare issues surrounding them. COVID-19 is now recognized as a multi-organ disease with a broad spectrum of manifestations. Similarly to post-acute viral syndromes described in survivors of other virulent coronavirus epidemics, there are increasing reports of persistent and prolonged effects after acute COVID-19. Patient advocacy groups, many members of which identify themselves as long haulers, have helped contribute to the recognition of post-acute COVID-19, a syndrome characterized by persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the current literature on post-acute COVID-19, its pathophysiology and its organ-specific sequelae. Finally, we discuss relevant considerations for the multidisciplinary care of COVID-19 survivors and propose a framework for the identification of those at high risk for post-acute COVID-19 and their coordinated management through dedicated COVID-19 clinics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , SARS-CoV-2 , Acute Disease , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19/therapy , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/therapy , Humans , Patient Advocacy , Syndrome , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/epidemiology , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
8.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(11): e0567, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1515112

ABSTRACT

Factors associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation are still not fully elucidated. OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-level parameters, readily available at the bedside, associated with the risk of in-hospital mortality within 28 days from commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation or coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational cohort study by the global Coronavirus Disease 2019 Critical Care Consortium. Patients with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation from February 2, 2020, to May 15, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient characteristics and clinical data were assessed upon ICU admission, the commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation and for 28 days thereafter. We primarily aimed to identify time-independent and time-dependent risk factors for 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality. RESULTS: One-thousand five-hundred eighty-seven patients were included in the survival analysis; 588 patients died in hospital within 28 days of commencing invasive mechanical ventilation (37%). Cox-regression analysis identified associations between the hazard of 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality with age (hazard ratio, 1.26 per 10-yr increase in age; 95% CI, 1.16-1.37; p < 0.001), positive end-expiratory pressure upon commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.81 per 5 cm H2O increase; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97; p = 0.02). Time-dependent parameters associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality were serum creatinine (hazard ratio, 1.28 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41; p < 0.001), lactate (hazard ratio, 1.22 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.11-1.34; p < 0.001), Paco2 (hazard ratio, 1.63 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.19-2.25; p < 0.001), pH (hazard ratio, 0.89 per 0.1 increase; 95% CI, 0.8-14; p = 0.041), Pao2/Fio2 (hazard ratio, 0.58 per doubling; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66; p < 0.001), and mean arterial pressure (hazard ratio, 0.92 per 10 mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This international study suggests that in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 on invasive mechanical ventilation, older age and clinically relevant variables monitored at baseline or sequentially during the course of invasive mechanical ventilation are associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality hazard. Further investigation is warranted to validate any causative roles these parameters might play in influencing clinical outcomes.

10.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 2021 Oct 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475902

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.

11.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): e1001-e1014, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475867

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Prone Position/physiology , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Patient Positioning , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology
12.
JAMA ; 326(11): 1013-1023, 2021 09 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1441906

ABSTRACT

Importance: In patients who require mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, further reduction in tidal volumes, compared with conventional low tidal volume ventilation, may improve outcomes. Objective: To determine whether lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation using extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal improves outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial enrolled 412 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, of a planned sample size of 1120, between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Follow-up ended on March 11, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive lower tidal volume ventilation facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with conventional low tidal volume ventilation (n = 210). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 90 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28 and adverse event rates. Results: Among 412 patients who were randomized (mean age, 59 years; 143 [35%] women), 405 (98%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped early because of futility and feasibility following recommendations from the data monitoring and ethics committee. The 90-day mortality rate was 41.5% in the lower tidal volume ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs 39.5% in the standard care group (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.83-1.33]; difference, 2.0% [95% CI, -7.6% to 11.5%]; P = .68). There were significantly fewer mean ventilator-free days in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group compared with the standard care group (7.1 [95% CI, 5.9-8.3] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 7.9-10.4] days; mean difference, -2.1 [95% CI, -3.8 to -0.3]; P = .02). Serious adverse events were reported for 62 patients (31%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group and 18 (9%) in the standard care group, including intracranial hemorrhage in 9 patients (4.5%) vs 0 (0%) and bleeding at other sites in 6 (3.0%) vs 1 (0.5%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs the control group. Overall, 21 patients experienced 22 serious adverse events related to the study device. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation, compared with conventional low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. However, due to early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02654327.


Subject(s)
Carbon Dioxide/blood , Extracorporeal Circulation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Early Termination of Clinical Trials , Extracorporeal Circulation/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Tidal Volume
13.
Lancet ; 398(10307): 1230-1238, 2021 10 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440421

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Hospital Mortality/trends , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , Duration of Therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/trends , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Registries , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , SARS-CoV-2
14.
J Clin Med ; 10(16)2021 Aug 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1354993

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The progression of clinical manifestations in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) highlights the need to account for symptom duration at the time of hospital presentation in decision-making algorithms. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control analysis of 4103 adult patients with COVID-19 and at least 28 days of follow-up who presented to a New York City medical center. Multivariable logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were used to identify predictors of poor outcome. RESULTS: Patients presenting to the hospital earlier in their disease course were older, had more comorbidities, and a greater proportion decompensated (<4 days, 41%; 4-8 days, 31%; >8 days, 26%). The first recorded oxygen delivery method was the most important predictor of decompensation overall in CART analysis. In patients with symptoms for <4, 4-8, and >8 days, requiring at least non-rebreather, age ≥ 63 years, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio ≥ 5.1; requiring at least non-rebreather, IL-6 ≥ 24.7 pg/mL, and D-dimer ≥ 2.4 µg/mL; and IL-6 ≥ 64.3 pg/mL, requiring non-rebreather, and CRP ≥ 152.5 mg/mL in predictive models were independently associated with poor outcome, respectively. CONCLUSION: Symptom duration in tandem with initial clinical and laboratory markers can be used to identify patients with COVID-19 at increased risk for poor outcomes.

15.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 211, 2021 06 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352668

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Risk Assessment
19.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 238, 2021 07 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300260

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Current practices regarding tracheostomy in patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome are unknown. Our objectives were to assess the prevalence and the association between the timing of tracheostomy (during or after ECMO weaning) and related complications, sedative, and analgesic use. METHODS: International, multicenter, retrospective study in four large volume ECMO centers during a 9-year period. RESULTS: Of the 1,168 patients treated with ECMO for severe ARDS (age 48 ± 16 years, 76% male, SAPS II score 51 ± 18) during the enrollment period, 353 (30%) and 177 (15%) underwent tracheostomy placement during or after ECMO, respectively. Severe complications were uncommon in both groups. Local bleeding within 24 h of tracheostomy was four times more frequent during ECMO (25 vs 7% after ECMO, p < 0.01). Cumulative sedative consumption decreased more rapidly after the procedure with sedative doses almost negligible 48-72 h later, when tracheostomy was performed after ECMO decannulation (p < 0.01). A significantly increased level of consciousness was observed within 72 h after tracheostomy in the "after ECMO" group, whereas it was unchanged in the "during-ECMO" group. CONCLUSION: In contrast to patients undergoing tracheostomy after ECMO decannulation, tracheostomy during ECMO was neither associated with a decrease in sedation and analgesia levels nor with an increase in the level of consciousness. This finding together with a higher risk of local bleeding in the days following the procedure reinforces the need for a case-by-case discussion on the balance between risks and benefits of tracheotomy when performed during ECMO.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Tracheostomy/methods , Adult , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/statistics & numerical data , Female , France/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Internationality , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Simplified Acute Physiology Score , Tracheostomy/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
20.
Membranes (Basel) ; 11(7)2021 Jun 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1288952

ABSTRACT

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used with increasing frequency to support patients with acute respiratory failure, most commonly, and severe forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The marked increase in the global use of ECMO followed the publication of a large randomized trial in 2009 and the experience garnered during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, and has been further supported by the release of a large, randomized clinical trial in 2018, confirming a benefit from using ECMO in patients with severe ARDS. Despite a rapid expansion of ECMO-related publications, optimal management of patients receiving ECMO, in terms of patient selection, ventilator management, anticoagulation, and transfusion strategies, is evolving. Most recently, ECMO is being utilized for an expanding variety of conditions, including for cases of severe pulmonary or cardiac failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review evaluates modern evidence for ECMO for respiratory failure and the current challenges in the field.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...