Search

Background Patients with severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress on venovenous extracorporeal lung support (V-V ECLS) showed a high incidence of vascular as well as ECLS-related thrombotic complications. The latter may influence the outcome of the patients. Methods This is a retrospective monocentric study on prospectively collected data of technical complications including 69 adult COVID-19 patients on V-V ECLS (ECLS Registry, March 2020 until April 2021) without and with system exchanges. Alterations in ECLS-specific data, hemolysis, coagulation, and hemostasis parameters were analyzed. Results Every second COVID-19 patient on V-V ECLS developed technical complications. Optimized ECLS management at our ECLS center reduced cases of acute clot formation (pump head thrombosis, acute oxygenator thrombosis) (17%), and allowed early identification of progressive clotting processes (worsened gas transfer, coagulation disorder) (14%, 54%) with a significant overhang of hyperfibrinolysis (37%). Although COVID-19 disease and technical complications caused the prolonged length of stay at the intensive care unit and ECLS support times, the proportion of successful weaning and survival rates were comparable with patients without system exchange. Conclusion The survival of ECLS patients with COVID-19 was independent of the requirement for system exchange due to technical-induced coagulation disorders. Close monitoring for circuit clotting is mandatory in COVID-19 patients and is one prerequisite for successful organ support in these difficult patients.

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of arterial and venous complications in patients requiring peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and its risk factors at the time of cannulation and during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support and to assess vascular complications in association with decannulation.Material and methodsBetween January 2010 to January 2020, out of 1,030 eligible patients requiring VA-ECMO, 427 with analyzable vascular screening were included. Duplex sonography and/or CT scan after decannulation were used to screen for thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as well as arterial complications. Near-infrared spectrometry (NIRS) was established at the time of cannulation and was continuously monitored during the ECMO therapy.ResultsThe prevalence of venous complications was 27%. Thrombosis and pulmonary embolism were observed in 21 and 7% of patients, respectively. Pulmonary embolism was more frequently diagnosed in patients with thrombosis (22 vs. 3%, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, cannulation in the jugular vein was determined as a risk factor for venous thrombosis in contrast to the extent of anticoagulation. The prevalence of arterial complications was 37%, mainly ischemia followed by bleeding, dissection, and compartment syndrome. Vascular surgery was necessary for 19% of the patients, of whome 1% required major amputations. A distal perfusion cannula (DPC) was implanted at cannulation in 24% of patients and secondarily in 16% of patients after cannulation as required during ECMO support. In the multivariate analysis, risk factors for leg ischemia at the time of cannulation were elevated D-dimers, lower NIRS on the cannulated leg, and lack of a DPC. The best discriminative parameter was the difference in NIRS between the non-cannulated leg and the cannulated leg. In contrast, during ECMO support, only the lack of a DPC was associated with leg ischemia. A similar rate of complications associated with decannulation, mainly arterial thrombosis, ischemia, or bleeding, was seen with percutaneous and surgical approaches (18 vs. 17%, p = 0.295).ConclusionPatients requiring VA ECMO should be routinely screened for vascular complications. The decision to insert a DPC should be evaluated individually. However, NIRS monitoring of the cannulated leg and the non-cannulated leg is essential to identify the legs at risk for critical ischemia. As complications associated with decannulation were equally distributed between percutaneous and surgical approaches, the applied method may be chosen according to local experience.

BackgroundRecirculation is a common problem in venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The aims of this study were to compare recirculation fraction (Rf) between femoro-jugular and jugulo-femoral VV ECMO configurations, to identify risk factors for recirculation and to assess the impact on hemolysis.MethodsPatients in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) at the University Medical Center Regensburg, Germany receiving VV ECMO with femoro-jugular, and jugulo-femoral configuration at the ECMO Center Karolinska, Sweden, were included in this non-randomized prospective study. Total ECMO flow (QEC), recirculated flow (QREC), and recirculation fraction Rf = QREC/QEC were determined using ultrasound dilution technology. Effective ECMO flow (QEFF) was defined as QEFF = QEC * (1–Rf). Demographics, cannula specifics, and markers of hemolysis were assessed. Survival was evaluated at discharge from ICU.ResultsThirty-seven patients with femoro-jugular configuration underwent 595 single-point measurements and 18 patients with jugulo-femoral configuration 231 measurements. Rf was lower with femoro-jugular compared to jugulo-femoral configuration [5 (0, 11) vs. 19 (13, 28) %, respectively (p < 0.001)], resulting in similar QEFF [2.80 (2.21, 3.39) vs. 2.79 (2.39, 3.08) L/min (p = 0.225)] despite lower QEC with femoro-jugular configuration compared to jugulo-femoral [3.01 (2.40, 3.70) vs. 3.57 (3.05, 4.06) L/min, respectively (p < 0.001)]. In multivariate regression analysis, the type of configuration, distance between the two cannula tips, ECMO flow, and heart rate were significantly associated with Rf [B (95% CI): 25.8 (17.6, 33.8), p < 0.001; 960.4 (960.7, 960.1), p = 0.009; 4.2 (2.5, 5.9), p < 0.001; 960.1 (960.2, 0.0), p = 0.027]. Hemolysis was similar in subjects with Rf > 8 vs. ≤ 8%. Explorative data on survival showed comparable results in the femoro-jugular and the jugulo-femoral group (81 vs. 72%, p = 0.455).ConclusionVV ECMO with femoro-jugular configuration caused less recirculation. Further risk factors for higher Rf were shorter distance between the two cannula tips, higher ECMO flow, and lower heart rate. Rf did not affect hemolysis.

Objectives Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the commonly used anticoagulant to prevent clotting of the ECMO circuit and thrombosis of the cannulated vessels. A side effect of UFH is heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Little is known about HIT during ECMO and the impact of changing anticoagulation in ECMO patients with newly diagnosed HIT. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence, complications, impact of switching anticoagulation to argatroban and outcomes of patients developing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during either veno-venous (VV) or veno-arterial (VA) ECMO. Methods Retrospective observational single centre study of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients receiving VV ECMO therapy for severe respiratory failure and VA ECMO for circulatory failure from January 2006 to December 2016 of the Medical intensive care unit (ICU) of the University Hospital of Regensburg. Treatment of HIT on ECMO was done with argatroban. Results 507 patients requiring ECMO were included. Further HIT-diagnostic was conducted if HIT-4T-score was ≥4. The HIT-confirmed group had positive HIT-enzyme-linked-immunosorbent-assay (ELISA) and positive heparin-induced-platelet-activation (HIPA) test, the HIT-suspicion group a positive HIT-ELISA and missing HIPA but remained on alternative anticoagulation until discharge and the HIT-excluded group a negative or positive HIT-ELISA, however negative HIPA. These were compared to group ECMO-control without any HIT suspicion. The prevalence of HIT-confirmed was 3.2%, of HIT-suspicion 2.0% and HIT-excluded 10.8%. Confirmed HIT was trendwise more frequent in VV than in VA (3.9 vs. 1.7% p = 0.173). Compared to the ECMO control group, patients with confirmed HIT were longer on ECMO (median 13 vs. 8 days, p = 0.002). Different types of complications were higher in the HIT-confirmed than in the ECMO-control group, but in-hospital mortality was not different (31% vs. 41%, p = 0.804). Conclusion HIT is rare on ECMO, should be suspected, if platelets are decreasing, but seems not to increase mortality if treated promptly.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-prf-10.1177_0267659121995997 for ECMO in COVID-19—prolonged therapy needed? A retrospective analysis of outcome and prognostic factors by Esther Dreier, Maximilian Valentin Malfertheiner, Thomas Dienemann, Christoph Fisser, Maik Foltan, Florian Geismann, Bernhard Graf, Dirk Lunz, Lars Siegfried Maier, Thomas Müller, Robert Offner, David Peterhoff, Alois Philipp, Bernd Salzberger, Barbara Schmidt, Barbara Sinner and Matthias Lubnow in Perfusion

Additional file 1. Supplementary information on the methods, anticoagulation strategy and further results.