Outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Descriptive information on referral patterns and short-term outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-centre observational cohort study of ECMO referrals to Toronto General Hospital (receiving hospital) for severe respiratory failure (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19), between 1 December 2019 and 30 November 2020. Data related to the referral, the referral decision, and reasons for refusal were collected. Reasons for refusal were grouped into three mutually exclusive categories selected a priori: "too sick now," "too sick before," and "not sick enough." In declined referrals, referring physicians were surveyed to collect patient outcome on day 7 after the referral. The primary study endpoints were referral outcome (accepted/declined) and patient outcome (alive/deceased). RESULTS: A total of 193 referrals were included; 73% were declined for transfer. Referral outcome was influenced by age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 0.96; P < 0.01) and involvement of other members of the ECMO team in the discussion (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.28 to 15.2; P < 0.01). Patient outcomes were missing in 46 (24%) referrals (inability to locate the referring physician or the referring physician being unable to recall the outcome). Using available data (95 declined and 52 accepted referrals; n = 147), survival to day 7 was 49% for declined referrals (35% for patients deemed "too sick now," 53% for "too sick before," 100% for "not sick enough," and 50% for reason for refusal not reported) and 98% for transferred patients. Sensitivity analysis setting missing outcomes to directional extreme values retained robustness of survival probabilities. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the patients declined for ECMO consideration were alive on day 7. More information on patient trajectory and long-term outcomes in declined referrals is needed to refine selection criteria.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: On manque d'informations descriptives sur les schémas de références et les devenirs à court terme des patient·es atteint·es d'insuffisance respiratoire n'ayant pas pu recevoir une oxygénation par membrane extracorporelle (ECMO). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte observationnelle prospective monocentrique sur les références vers l'ECMO à l'Hôpital général de Toronto (hôpital d'accueil) pour insuffisance respiratoire grave (COVID-19 et non-COVID-19), entre le 1er décembre 2019 et le 30 novembre 2020. Les données relatives à la référence, à la décision de référence et aux motifs du refus ont été recueillies. Les motifs de refus ont été regroupés en trois catégories mutuellement exclusives sélectionnées a priori : « Trop malade maintenant ¼, « Trop malade avant ¼ et « Pas assez malade ¼. En ce qui concerne les références refusées, un sondage envoyé aux médecins traitant·es avait pour objectif de recueillir les devenirs des patient·es le jour 7 suivant la référence. Les critères d'évaluation principaux de l'étude étaient le résultat de la référence (accepté/refusé) et le devenir des patient·es (vivant·e/décédé·e). RéSULTATS: Au total, 193 références ont été incluses; le transfert a été refusé dans 73 % des cas. L'acceptation ou le refus de la référence était influencé par l'âge (rapport de cotes [RC], 0,97; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,95 à 0,96; P < 0,01) et la participation d'autres membres de l'équipe ECMO à la discussion (RC, 4,42; IC 95 %, 1,28 à 15,2; P < 0,01). Les devenirs des patient·es étaient manquants pour 46 (24 %) des personnes référées (incapacité de localiser les médecins traitant·es ou incapacité des médecins de se souvenir du devenir). À l'aide des données disponibles (95 références refusées et 52 références acceptées; n = 147), la survie jusqu'au jour 7 était de 49 % pour les références refusées (35 % pour la patientèle jugée « trop malade maintenant ¼, 53 % pour celle « trop malade avant ¼, 100 % pour celle « pas assez malade ¼ et 50 % pour les cas où la raison du refus n'était pas déclarée) et 98 % pour les patient·es transféré·es. L'analyse de sensibilité établissant les résultats manquants à des valeurs extrêmes directionnelles a conservé la robustesse des probabilités de survie. CONCLUSION: Près de la moitié des patient·es pour lesquel·les un traitement sous ECMO a été refusé étaient en vie au jour 7. Davantage d'informations concernant la trajectoire et les devenirs à long terme des patient·es refusé·es sont nécessaires pour parfaire les critères de sélection.

Differences in Palliative Care Provision by Primary and Specialist Providers Supporting Patients with COVID-19: A Qualitative Study.

Objectives: To describe the delivery of palliative care by primary providers (PP) and specialist providers (SP) to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: PP and SP completed interviews about their experiences providing palliative care. Results were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-one physicians (11 SP, 10 PP) were interviewed. Six thematic categories emerged. Care provision: PP and SP described their support of care discussions, symptom management, managing end of life, and care withdrawal. Patients provided care: PP described patients at end of life, with comfort-focused goals; SP included patients seeking life-prolonging treatments. Approach to symptom management: SP described comfort, and PP discomfort in providing opioids with survival-focused goals. Goals of care: SP felt these conversations were code status-focused. Supporting family: both groups indicated difficulties engaging families due to visitor restrictions; SP also outlined challenges in managing family grief and need to advocate for family at the bedside. Care coordination: internist PP and SP described difficulties supporting those leaving the hospital. Conclusion: PP and SP may have a different approach to care, which may affect consistency and quality of care.

The Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19: Lessons Learned.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen an increase in global cases of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with a concomitant increased demand for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Outcomes of patients with severe ARDS due to COVID-19 infection receiving ECMO support are evolving. The need for surge capacity, practical and ethical limitations on implementing ECMO, and the prolonged duration of ECMO support in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS has revealed limitations in organization and resource utilization. Coordination of efforts at multiple levels, from research to implementation, resulted in numerous innovations in the delivery of ECMO.

Lessons Learned in Mechanical Ventilation/Oxygen Support in Coronavirus Disease 2019.

The clinical spectrum of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection ranges from asymptomatic infection or mild respiratory symptoms to pneumonia, with severe cases leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome with multiorgan involvement. The clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) changed over the course of the pandemic, being adjusted as more evidence became available. This article will review how the ventilatory management of COVID-19 ARDS evolved and will conclude with current evidence-based recommendations.

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.

Transesophageal Echocardiography-Guided Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Cannulation in COVID-19 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: A paucity of data supports the use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for bedside extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation. Concerns have been raised about performing TEEs in patients with COVID-19. The authors describe the use and safety of TEE guidance for ECMO cannulation for COVID-19. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The study took place in the intensive care unit of an academic tertiary center. PARTICIPANTS: The authors included 107 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent bedside venovenous ECMO (VV ECMO) cannulation under TEE guidance between May 2020 and June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: TEE-guided bedside VV ECMO cannulation. MEASUREMENTS: Patient characteristics, physiologic and ventilatory parameters, and echocardiographic findings were analyzed. The primary outcome was the number of successful TEE-guided bedside cannulations without complications. The secondary outcomes were cannulation complications, frequency of cannula repositioning, and TEE-related complications. MAIN RESULTS: TEE-guided cannulation was successful in 99% of the patients. Initial cannula position was adequate in all but 1 patient. Fourteen patients (13%) required cannula repositioning during ECMO support. Forty-five patients (42%) had right ventricular systolic dysfunction, and 9 (8%) had left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Twelve patients (11%) had intracardiac thrombi. One superficial arterial injury and 1 pneumothorax occurred. No pericardial tamponade, hemothorax or intraabdominal bleeding occurred in the authors' cohort. No TEE-related complications or COVID-19 infection of healthcare providers were reported during this study. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside TEE guidance for VV ECMO cannulation is safe in patients with severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19. No tamponade or hemothorax, nor TEE-related complications were observed in the authors' cohort.

Physician perceptions of restrictive visitor policies during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is understood of the consequences of restrictive visitor policies that were implemented in hospitals to minimize risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to describe physician experiences with these policies and reflections of their effects. METHODS: We conducted semistructured phone interviews from September 2020 to March 2021 with physicians practising in Ontario hospitals, recruited via professional networks and snowball sampling. We audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed interviews to describe and interpret overarching themes by thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 21 physicians (5 intensivists, 5 internists, 11 specialists in palliative care). Four main thematic categories emerged, including provider, system, patient and caregiver effects. Provider-related factors included increased time and effort on communication with a need to establish limits; increased effort to develop rapport with caregivers; lack of caregiver input on patient care; the need to act as a caregiver surrogate; and the emotional toll of being a gatekeeper or advocate for visitors, exacerbated by lack of evidence for restrictions and inconsistent enforcement. System effects included the avoidance of hospital admission and decreased length of stay, leading to readmissions, increased deaths at home and avoidance of transfer to other facilities with similar policies. Patient-related factors included isolation and dying alone; lack of caregiver advocacy; and prioritization of visitor presence that, at times, resulted in a delay or withdrawal of aspects of care. Caregiver-related factors included inability to personally assess patient health, leading to poor understanding of patient status and challenging decision-making; perceived inadequate communication; difficulty accessing caregiver supports; and increased risk of complicated grief. Participants highlighted a disproportionate effect on older adults and people who did not speak English. INTERPRETATION: Our study highlights substantial negative consequences of restrictive visitor policies, with heightened effects on older adults and people who did not speak English. Research is required to identify whether the benefits of visitor restrictions on infection control outweigh the numerous deleterious consequences to patients, families and care providers.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Bloodstream infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been widely used in the care of patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We characterized bloodstream infections (BSIs) and ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAPs) in COVID-19 patients supported with ECMO, and we investigated their impact on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. SETTING: Academic tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients admitted for COVID-19 who received ECMO. METHODS: We identified BSIs and VAPs and described their epidemiology and microbiology. Cumulative antimicrobial use and the specific management of BSIs were determined. Multivariate time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate the impact of BSIs and VAPs on mortality, controlling for age, receipt of COVID-19-specific therapeutics, and new renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: We identified 136 patients who received ECMO for COVID-19 pneumonia during the study period. BSIs and VAPs occurred in 81 patients (59.6%) and 93 patients (68.4%), respectively. The incidence of BSIs was 29.5 per 1,000 ECMO days and increased with duration of ECMO cannulation. Enterococci, Enterobacterales, and Staphylococcus aureus were the most common causes of BSIs, whereas S. aureus, Klebsiella species, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa comprised the majority of VAPs. Mean antibiotic use comprised 1,031 days of therapy per 1,000 ECMO days (SD, 496). We did not detect an association between BSIs or VAPs and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: BSIs and VAPs are common in COVID-19 ECMO-supported patients. Efforts to optimize their diagnosis, prevention, and management should be prioritized.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

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 in COVID-19.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an intervention for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Although COVID-19-related ARDS has some distinct features, its overall clinical presentation resembles ARDS from other etiologies. Thus, similar evidence-based practices for its management should be applied. These include lung-protective ventilation, prone positioning, and adjuvant strategies, such as ECMO, when appropriate. Current evidence suggests that ECMO in COVID-19-related ARDS has similar efficacy and safety profile as for non-COVID-19 ARDS. The high number of severe COVID-19 cases and demand for therapies, such as ECMO, poses a unique opportunity to increase the understanding on how to optimize this intervention.

Effect of Awake Prone Positioning on Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute covid-19 associated respiratory failure: comparative effectiveness study.

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.

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.