Search

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 (χ2, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large proportion of critically ill H1N1/2009 patients with respiratory failure subsequently developed ARDS and, to date, about 400 patients receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS) have been accounted for globally, with a reported survival rate from 63% to 79%. The survival rates of patients with ARDS due to non-H1N1/2009 infections are similar. There is no definite evidence to suggest that patient outcomes are changed by ECLS, but its use is associated with serious short-term complications.ECLS relies on an extracorporeal circuit, with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and pumpless interventional lung assist (ILA) being the two major types employed in ARDS. Both have the potential to correct respiratory failure and related haemodynamic instability. There are only a very limited number of clinical trials to test either and, although ECLS has been used in treating H1N1/2009 patients with ARDS with some success, it should only be offered in the context of clinical trials and in experienced centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]