Search

Background: As the pandemic progressed, the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome increased, and patient triage and transfer to ECMO centers became important to optimize patient outcomes. Our objectives are to identify predictors of patient transfer for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) evaluation as well as to describe the outcomes of accepted patients., Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective analysis of V-V ECMO transfer requests for adult patients with known or suspected COVID-19 and respiratory failure from March 2020 until March 2021. Data were collected prospectively during the triage process for transfer requests as part of clinical patient care at our institution., Results: Of 341 referred patients, 112 (33%) were accepted for transfer to our facility, whereas 229 (67%) patients were declined for transfer. The Classification and Regression Tree analysis showed that patients' high pressure during airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and age were the variables most significantly associated with the decision to accept or decline patients for transfer., Conclusions: Our triage process enabled one-third of referred patients to be transferred for evaluation, with nearly 70% of those patients ultimately receiving ECMO support. High ventilator settings on APRV and young age were associated with acceptance for transfer. Accepted patients also had a higher incidence of adjunctive therapies (proning and paralysis) prior to transfer request, less cardiac or renal dysfunction, and a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation. Further research is warranted to investigate the outcomes of nontransferred patients., (© 2024 International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has become a support modality for patients with acute respiratory failure refractory to standard therapies. VV ECMO has been increasingly used during the current COVID-19 pandemic for patients with refractory respiratory failure. The object of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of VV ECMO in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients with non-COVID-19 viral infections., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients supported with VV ECMO between 8/2014 and 8/2020 whose etiology of illness was a viral pulmonary infection. The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included length of ECMO course, ventilator duration, hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events through ECMO course., Results: Eighty-nine patients were included (35 COVID-19 vs 54 non-COVID-19). Forty (74%) of the non-COVID-19 patients had influenza virus. Prior to cannulation, COVID-19 patients had longer ventilator duration (3 vs 1 day, p = .003), higher PaCO 2 (64 vs 53 mmHg, p = .012), and white blood cell count (14 vs 9 ×10 3 /μL, p = .004). Overall in-hospital mortality was 33.7% ( n = 30). COVID-19 patients had a higher mortality (49% vs. 24%, p = .017) when compared to non-COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 survivors had longer median time on ECMO than non-COVID-19 survivors (24.4 vs 16.5 days p = .03) but had a similar hospital length of stay (HLOS) (41 vs 48 Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenationdays p = .33)., Conclusion: COVID-19 patients supported with VV ECMO have a higher mortality than non-COVID-19 patients. While COVID-19 survivors had significantly longer VV ECMO runs than non-COVID-19 survivors, HLOS was similar. This data add to a growing body of literature supporting the use of ECMO for potentially reversible causes of respiratory failure.

(1) Background: COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) has several distinctions from traditional acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, patients with refractory respiratory failure may still benefit from veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) support. We report our challenges caring for CARDS patients on VV-ECMO and alterations to traditional management strategies. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of our institutional strategies for managing patients with COVID-19 who required VV-ECMO in a dedicated airlock biocontainment unit (BCU), from March to June 2020. The data collected included the time course of admission, VV-ECMO run, ventilator length, hospital length of stay, and major events related to bleeding, such as pneumothorax and tracheostomy. The dispensation of sedation agents and trial therapies were obtained from institutional pharmacy tracking. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. (3) Results: Forty COVID-19 patients on VV-ECMO were managed in the BCU during this period, from which 21 survived to discharge and 19 died. The criteria for ECMO initiation was altered for age, body mass index, and neurologic status/cardiac arrest. All cannulations were performed with a bedside ultrasound-guided percutaneous technique. Ventilator and ECMO management were routed in an ultra-lung protective approach, though varied based on clinical setting and provider experience. There was a high incidence of pneumothorax (n = 19). Thirty patients had bedside percutaneous tracheostomy, with more procedural-related bleeding complications than expected. A higher use of sedation was noted. The timing of decannulation was also altered, given the system constraints. A variety of trial therapies were utilized, and their effectiveness is yet to be determined. (4) Conclusions: Even in a high-volume ECMO center, there are challenges in caring for an expanded capacity of patients during a viral respiratory pandemic. Though institutional resources and expertise may vary, it is paramount to proceed with insightful planning, the recognition of challenges, and the dynamic application of lessons learned when facing a surge of critically ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The most critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may require advanced support modalities, such as veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). A systematic, methodical approach to a respiratory pandemic on a state and institutional level is critical. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of our institutional response to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the creation of a dedicated airlock biocontainment unit (BCU) to treat patients with refractory COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS). Data were collected through conversations with staff on varying levels in the BCU, those leading the effort to make the BCU and hospital incident command system, email communications regarding logistic changes being implemented, and a review of COVID-19 patient census at our institution from March through June 2020. Results: Over 2100 patients were successfully admitted to system hospitals; 29% of these patients required critical care. The response to this respiratory pandemic augmented intensive care physician staffing, created a 70-member nursing team, and increased the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) capability by nearly 200%. During this time period, 40 COVID-19 patients on VV-ECMO were managed in the BCU. Challenges in an airlock unit included communication, scarcity of resources, double-bunking, and maintaining routine care. Conclusions: Preparing for a surge of critically ill patients during a pandemic can be a daunting task. The implementation of a coordinated, system-level approach can help with the allocation of resources as needed. Focusing on established strengths of hospitals within the system can guide triage based on individual patient needs. The management of ECMO patients is still a specialty care, and a systematic and hospital based approach requiring an ECMO team composed of multiple experienced individuals is paramount during a respiratory viral pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]