Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Selection by Multidisciplinary Consensus: The ECMO Council.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has increased the demand for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and introduced distinct challenges to patient selection for ECMO. Standardized processes for patient selection amidst resource limitations are lacking, and data on ECMO consults are underreported. We retrospectively reviewed consecutive adult ECMO consults for acute respiratory failure received at a single academic medical center from April 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and evaluated the implementation of a multidisciplinary selection committee (ECMO Council) and standardized framework for patient selection for ECMO. During the 334-day period, there were 202 total ECMO consults; 174 (86.1%) included a diagnosis of COVID-19. Among all consults, 157 (77.7%) were declined and 41 (20.3%) resulted in the initiation of ECMO. Frequent reasons for decline included the presence of multiple relative contraindications (n = 33), age greater than 60 years (n = 32), and resource limitations (n = 27). The ECMO Council deliberated on every case in which an absolute contraindication was not present (n = 96) via an electronic teleconference platform. Utilizing multidisciplinary consensus together with a standardized process for patient selection in ECMO is feasible during a pandemic and may be reliably exercised over time. Whether such an approach is feasible at other centers remains unknown.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuits in parallel for refractory hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Refractory hypoxemia can occur in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome from COVID-19 despite support with venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Parallel ECMO circuits can be used to increase physiologic support. We report our clinical experience using ECMO circuits in parallel for select patients with persistent severe hypoxemia despite the use of a single ECMO circuit. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome who received VV-ECMO with an additional circuit in parallel at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2022. We report demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics including ECMO settings, mechanical ventilator settings, use of adjunctive therapies, and arterial blood gas results after initial cannulation, before and after receipt of a second ECMO circuit in parallel, and before removal of the circuit in parallel, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 84 patients with COVID-19 who received VV-ECMO during the study period, 22 patients (26.2%) received a circuit in parallel. The median duration of ECMO was 40.0 days (interquartile range, 31.6-53.1 days), of which 19.0 days (interquartile range, 13.0-33.0 days) were spent with a circuit in parallel. Of the 22 patients who received a circuit in parallel, 16 (72.7%) survived to hospital discharge and 6 (27.3%) died before discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In select patients, the additional use of an ECMO circuit in parallel can increase ECMO blood flow and improve oxygenation while allowing for lung-protective mechanical ventilation and excellent outcomes.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Circuits in Parallel for Refractory Hypoxemia in COVID-19

Objectives Refractory hypoxemia can occur in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) despite support with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). Parallel ECMO circuits can be used to increase physiologic support. We report our clinical experience using ECMO circuits in parallel for select patients with persistent severe hypoxemia despite the use of a single ECMO circuit. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with COVID-19 related ARDS receiving VV-ECMO who received an additional circuit in parallel at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between March 1, 2020 and March 1, 2022. We report demographics, clinical characteristics including ECMO settings, mechanical ventilator settings, use of adjunctive therapies, and arterial blood gas results after initial cannulation, before and after receipt of a second ECMO circuit in parallel, and prior to removal of the circuit in parallel, and outcomes. Results Of 84 patients with COVID-19 who received VV-ECMO during the study period, 22 patients (26.2%) received a circuit in parallel. The median time on ECMO was 40.0 days (IQR, 31.6-53.1 days), of which 19.0 days (IQR, 13.0-33.0 days) were spent on a circuit in parallel. Of the 22 patients who received a circuit in parallel, 16 (72.7%) survived to hospital discharge and 6 (27.3%) died before discharge. Conclusions In select patients, addition of an ECMO circuit in parallel can increase ECMO blood flow and improve oxygenation while allowing for lung-protective mechanical ventilation and excellent outcomes.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Circuits in Parallel for Refractory Hypoxemia in COVID-19: A Case Series.

Refractory hypoxemia despite the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome remains a challenging problem. A single ECMO circuit may not provide adequate physiologic support in the setting of an elevated cardiac output, physiologic demand, and impaired gas exchange. In select patients with refractory hypoxemia, addition of a second ECMO circuit in parallel can improve oxygenation, facilitate lung protective ventilation, awakening, and physical rehabilitation. We report the largest case series to date of patients receiving ECMO circuits in parallel and the first to report this approach in COVID-19.

Safety and Feasibility of a Protocolized Daily Assessment of Readiness for Liberation From Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at the earliest and safest possible time may improve outcomes and reduce cost. Yet, no prospective studies have compared weaning strategies for liberation from ECMO. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is a protocolized daily assessment of readiness to liberate from venovenous ECMO safe and feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-arm safety and feasibility study of a protocol for daily assessment of readiness to liberate from venovenous ECMO among consecutive adult patients receiving venovenous ECMO across four ICUs at a single center between June 20, 2020, and November 24, 2020. The ECMO-free protocol included three phases: (1) the safety screening, (2) non-ECMO Fio2 titration, and (3) the ECMO-free trial. Enrollment, interventions, and data collection were performed prospectively by trained study staff. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients received the ECMO-free protocol on 385 patient-days. The safety screening was passed during a total of 59 ECMO-free daily assessments (15.3%) among 20 patients. Every passed safety screening proceeded to an ECMO-free trial. Twenty-eight passed ECMO-free trials (47.5%) occurred among 16 patients (61.5%). No missed safety screenings, protocol deviations, or adverse events occurred. Of the 16 patients who passed an ECMO-free trial, 14 patients (87.5%) were decannulated. Among decannulated patients, 12 patients (85.7%) were decannulated on the same day as a passed ECMO-free trial, 6 patients (42.9%) were decannulated on the first day that they passed an ECMO-free trial, and 6 patients (42.9%) passed an ECMO-free trial at least twice consecutively before decannulation. The median time from first passed ECMO-free trial to decannulation was 2 days (interquartile range, 0-3 days). INTERPRETATION: The ECMO-free protocol is feasible and may identify patients for decannulation earlier than gradual approaches to weaning.