Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a boom in the use of V-V ECMO for ARDS secondary to COVID. Comparisons of outcomes of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for influenza have emerged. Very few comparisons of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for ARDS of all etiologies are available., Objectives: To compare clinically important outcome measures in recipients of ECMO for COVID to those observed in recipients of ECMO for ARDS of other etiologies., Methods: V-V ECMO recipients between March 2020 and March 2022 consisted exclusively of COVID patients and formed the COVID ECMO group. All patients who underwent V-V ECMO for ARDS between January 2014 and March 2020 were eligible for analysis as the non-COVID ECMO comparator group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included ECMO decannulation, ECMO duration >30 days, and serious complications., Results: Thirty-six patients comprised the COVID ECMO group and were compared to 18 non-COVID ECMO patients. Survival to hospital discharge was not significantly different between the two groups (33% in COVID vs. 50% in non-COVID; p = 0.255) nor was there a significant difference in the rate of non-palliative ECMO decannulation. The proportion of patients connected to ECMO for >30 days was significantly higher in the COVID ECMO group: 69% vs. 17%; p = 0.001. There was no significant difference in serious complications., Conclusion: This study could not identify a statistically significant difference in hospital survival and rate of successful ECMO decannulation between COVID ECMO and non-COVID ECMO patients. Prolonged ECMO may be more common in COVID. Complications were not significantly different., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors has any relevant competing interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides complete or partial support of the heart and lungs. Ever since its inception in the 1960s, it has been used across all age groups in the management of refractory respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock. While it has gained widespread acceptance in the neonatal and pediatric physician community, ECMO remains a controversial therapy for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults. Its popularity was revived during the swine flu (H1N1) pandemic and advancements in technology have contributed to its increasing usage. ARDS continues to be a potentially devastating condition with significant mortality rates. Despite gaining more insights into this entity over the years, mechanical ventilation remains the only life-saving, yet potentially harmful intervention available for ARDS. ECMO shows promise in this regard by offering less dependence on mechanical ventilation, thereby potentially reducing ventilator-induced injury. However, the lack of rigorous clinical data has prevented ECMO from becoming the standard of care in the management of ARDS. Therefore, the results of two large ongoing randomized trials, which will hopefully throw more light on the role of ECMO in the management of this disease entity, are keenly awaited. In this article we will provide a basic overview of the development of ECMO, the types of ECMO, the pathogenesis of ARDS, different ventilation strategies for ARDS, the role of ECMO in ARDS and the role of ECMO as a bridge to lung transplantation.