A Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Managed With Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the First and Second Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: Early studies of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19 have revealed similar outcomes to historical cohorts. Changes in the disease and treatments have led to differences in the patients supported on venovenous ECMO in the first and second waves. We aimed to compare these two groups in both the acute and follow-up phase. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center cohort study comparing mortality at censoring date (November 30, 2021) and decannulation, patient characteristics, complications and lung function and quality of life (QOL-by European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version) at first follow-up in patients supported on venovenous ECMO between wave 1 and wave 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Critical care department of a severe acute respiratory failure service. PATIENTS: Patients supported on ECMO for COVID-19 between wave 1 (March 17, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and wave 2 (January 9, 2020, to May 25, 2021). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were included in our analysis. Survival at censoring date (χ 2 , 6.35; p = 0.012) and decannulation (90.4% vs 70.0%; p < 0.001) was significantly lower in the second wave, while duration of ECMO run was longer (12.0 d [18.0-30.0 d] vs 29.5 d [15.5-58.3 d]; p = 0.005). Wave 2 patients had longer application of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) prior to ECMO and a higher frequency of barotrauma. Patient age and NIV use were independently associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.07 [1.01-1.14]; p = 0.025 and 3.37 [1.12-12.60]; p = 0.043, respectively). QOL and lung function apart from transfer coefficient of carbon monoxide corrected for hemoglobin was similar at follow-up across the waves. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with COVID-19 supported on ECMO in both waves survived in the short and longer term. At follow-up patients had similar lung function and QOL across the two waves. This suggests that ECMO has an ongoing role in the management of a carefully selected group of patients with COVID-19.

A comparison of long term outcomes in patients managed with VV-ECMO in the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (preprint)

Background: Early studies of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in COVID-19 have revealed similar outcomes to historical cohorts. Changes in the disease and treatments has led to differences in the patients supported on VV-ECMO in the 1 st and 2 nd waves. We aimed to compare these two groups in both the acute and follow-up phase. Methods: In this retrospective study, we identified the differences between patients supported on ECMO for COVID-19 between wave 1 (17/03/2020-31/08/2020) and wave 2 (01/09/2020-25/05/2021). We examined mortality at censoring date (30/11/2021) and decannulation, patient characteristics, complications and lung function and quality of life (QOL – by EQ5D3L) at first follow-up. Findings: One-hundred and twenty-three patients were included in our analysis. Survival at censoring date [Chi-sqaured 6.35, p=0.012] and decannulation [90.4% vs 70.0%, p<0.001], was significantly lower in the 2 nd wave, whilst duration of ECMO run was longer [12.0(18.0-30.0) days vs. 29.5(15.5-58.3)] days (p=0.005)). Wave 2 patients had longer application of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) prior to ECMO and a higher incidence of barotrauma. Patient age and NIV use were independently associated with increased mortality [OR 1.07(1.01-1.14), p=0.025 and 3.37(1.12–12.60), p=0.043 respectively]. QOL and lung function, apart from KCOc was similar at follow up across the waves. Conclusion: Most patients with COVID-19 supported on ECMO in both waves survived in the short and longer term. At follow-up patients had similar lung function and QOL across the 2 waves. This suggests that ECMO has an ongoing role in the management of a carefully selected group of patients with COVID-19. Trial Registration Research Ethics Committee (20/EM/0204)

Symptomatic, biochemical and radiographic recovery in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The symptoms, radiography, biochemistry and healthcare utilisation of patients with COVID-19 following discharge from hospital have not been well described. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 401 adult patients attending a clinic following an index hospital admission or emergency department attendance with COVID-19. Regression models were used to assess the association between characteristics and persistent abnormal chest radiographs or breathlessness. RESULTS: 75.1% of patients were symptomatic at a median of 53 days post discharge and 72 days after symptom onset and chest radiographs were abnormal in 47.4%. Symptoms and radiographic abnormalities were similar in PCR-positive and PCR-negative patients. Severity of COVID-19 was significantly associated with persistent radiographic abnormalities and breathlessness. 18.5% of patients had unscheduled healthcare visits in the 30 days post discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms and abnormal blood biomarkers with a gradual resolution of radiological abnormalities over time. These findings can inform patients and clinicians about expected recovery times and plan services for follow-up of patients with COVID-19.